[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1311081612190.16519@vincent-weaver-1.um.maine.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:15:21 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup
On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:23:07PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > There seem to be a loop that takes too long in intel_pmu_handle_irq(). Your two
> > > previous reports seemed to suggest that lbr is involved, but not this one.
> >
> > I may be wrong but I think everything between <NMI> and <EOE> is just
> > noise from the NMI perf-event watchdog timer kicking in.
>
> Ah good point.
>
> So the pattern seem to be that irq work/perf_event_wakeup is involved, may be
> interrupting a tracepoint event or so.
I managed to construct a reproducible test case, which is attached. I
sometimes have to run it 5-10 times before it triggers.
> It would be nice if you enable CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER in your future reports
> so that we get more precise traces. Or may be you actually enabled it and it
> doesn't work?
No, it's not enabled, I can try setting that in the future.
Vince
View attachment "out.c" of type "TEXT/x-csrc" (2950 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists