linux-kernel - Re: x86_pmu_start WARN

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402201414380.24360@vincent-weaver-1.um.maine.edu>
Date:	Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:21:26 -0500 (EST)
From:	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To:	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: x86_pmu_start WARN_ON.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Vince Weaver wrote:

> Might be relevant: check the last_cpu values.  Right before the above
> it looks like the thread gets moved from CPU 1 to CPU 0
> (possibly as a result of the long chain started with the
> close() of the tracepoint event),
> so the problem NMI watchdog event being enabled is a different one than 
> the one that was disabled just before.

so is this a false warning?  If you get scheduled to a new CPU
and there's an already running CPU-wide event, is that OK?

Or should x86_pmu_disable() be setting PERF_HES_STOPPED on all events?
It looks like other architectures are (such as armpmu_stop() ).

Vince

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/