[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1394030226-26652-59-git-send-email-luis.henriques@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 14:37:02 +0000
From: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.5 58/62] perf/x86: Fix event scheduling
3.5.7.32 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
commit 26e61e8939b1fe8729572dabe9a9e97d930dd4f6 upstream.
Vince "Super Tester" Weaver reported a new round of syscall fuzzing (Trinity) failures,
with perf WARN_ON()s triggering. He also provided traces of the failures.
This is I think the relevant bit:
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926153: x86_pmu_disable: x86_pmu_disable
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926153: x86_pmu_state: Events: {
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926156: x86_pmu_state: 0: state: .R config: ffffffffffffffff ( (null))
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926158: x86_pmu_state: 33: state: AR config: 0 (ffff88011ac99800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926159: x86_pmu_state: }
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926160: x86_pmu_state: n_events: 1, n_added: 0, n_txn: 1
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926161: x86_pmu_state: Assignment: {
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926162: x86_pmu_state: 0->33 tag: 1 config: 0 (ffff88011ac99800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926163: x86_pmu_state: }
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926166: collect_events: Adding event: 1 (ffff880119ec8800)
So we add the insn:p event (fd[23]).
At this point we should have:
n_events = 2, n_added = 1, n_txn = 1
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926170: collect_events: Adding event: 0 (ffff8800c9e01800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926172: collect_events: Adding event: 4 (ffff8800cbab2c00)
We try and add the {BP,cycles,br_insn} group (fd[3], fd[4], fd[15]).
These events are 0:cycles and 4:br_insn, the BP event isn't x86_pmu so
that's not visible.
group_sched_in()
pmu->start_txn() /* nop - BP pmu */
event_sched_in()
event->pmu->add()
So here we should end up with:
0: n_events = 3, n_added = 2, n_txn = 2
4: n_events = 4, n_added = 3, n_txn = 3
But seeing the below state on x86_pmu_enable(), the must have failed,
because the 0 and 4 events aren't there anymore.
Looking at group_sched_in(), since the BP is the leader, its
event_sched_in() must have succeeded, for otherwise we would not have
seen the sibling adds.
But since neither 0 or 4 are in the below state; their event_sched_in()
must have failed; but I don't see why, the complete state: 0,0,1:p,4
fits perfectly fine on a core2.
However, since we try and schedule 4 it means the 0 event must have
succeeded! Therefore the 4 event must have failed, its failure will
have put group_sched_in() into the fail path, which will call:
event_sched_out()
event->pmu->del()
on 0 and the BP event.
Now x86_pmu_del() will reduce n_events; but it will not reduce n_added;
giving what we see below:
n_event = 2, n_added = 2, n_txn = 2
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926177: x86_pmu_enable: x86_pmu_enable
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926177: x86_pmu_state: Events: {
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926179: x86_pmu_state: 0: state: .R config: ffffffffffffffff ( (null))
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926181: x86_pmu_state: 33: state: AR config: 0 (ffff88011ac99800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926182: x86_pmu_state: }
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926184: x86_pmu_state: n_events: 2, n_added: 2, n_txn: 2
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926184: x86_pmu_state: Assignment: {
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926186: x86_pmu_state: 0->33 tag: 1 config: 0 (ffff88011ac99800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926188: x86_pmu_state: 1->0 tag: 1 config: 1 (ffff880119ec8800)
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926188: x86_pmu_state: }
> pec_1076_warn-2804 [000] d... 147.926190: x86_pmu_enable: S0: hwc->idx: 33, hwc->last_cpu: 0, hwc->last_tag: 1 hwc->state: 0
So the problem is that x86_pmu_del(), when called from a
group_sched_in() that fails (for whatever reason), and without x86_pmu
TXN support (because the leader is !x86_pmu), will corrupt the n_added
state.
Reported-and-Tested-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140221150312.GF3104@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index c4706cf..3396fc4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -1162,6 +1162,9 @@ static void x86_pmu_del(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) {
if (event == cpuc->event_list[i]) {
+ if (i >= cpuc->n_events - cpuc->n_added)
+ --cpuc->n_added;
+
if (x86_pmu.put_event_constraints)
x86_pmu.put_event_constraints(cpuc, event);
--
1.9.0
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists