linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, nmi: Add new nmi type 'external'

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20140509071050.GA19751@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 9 May 2014 09:10:50 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, andi@...stfloor.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, nmi:  Add new nmi type 'external'


* Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 07:35:01PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Again, I don't have a solution to juggle between PMI performance 
> > > > > and reliable delivery.  We could do away with the spinlocks and 
> > > > > go back to single cpu delivery (like it used to be).  Then 
> > > > > devise a mechanism to switch delivery to another cpu upon 
> > > > > hotplug.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > 
> > > > I'd say we should do a delayed timer that makes sure that all 
> > > > possible handlers are polled after an NMI is triggered, but never 
> > > > at a high rate.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I was thinking about it and wanted to avoid a poll as I hear 
> > > complaints here and there about the nmi_watchdog constantly wasting 
> > > power cycles with its polling.
> > 
> > But the polling would only happen if there's NMI traffic, so that's 
> > fine. So as long as polling stops some time after the last PMI use, 
> > it's a good solution.
> 
> So you are thinking an NMI comes in, kicks off a delayed timer for 
> say 10ms.  The timer fires, rechecks the NMI for missed events and 
> then stops? If another NMI happens before the timer fires, just kick 
> the timer again?
> 
> Something like that?

Yeah, exactly, using delayed IRQ work for that or so.

This would allow us to 'optimistic' processing of NMI events: the 
first handler that manages to do any work causes a return. No need to 
make a per handler distinction, etc.

It would generally be pretty robust and would possibly be a natural 
workaround for 'stuck PMU' type of bugs as well.

[ As long as it does not result in spurious 'dazed and confused' 
  messages :-) ]

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/