linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86, perf: avoid spamming kernel log for bts buffer failure

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]

Date:	Wed, 2 Jul 2014 15:16:40 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	x86 <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, perf: avoid spamming kernel log for bts buffer failure

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 04:04:08PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
>> It's unnecessary to excessively spam the kernel log anytime the BTS buffer
>> cannot be allocated, so make this allocation __GFP_NOWARN.
>>
>> The user probably will want to at least find some artifact that the
>> allocation has failed in the past, probably due to fragmentation because
>> of its large size, when it's not allocated at bootstrap.  Thus, add a
>> WARN_ONCE() so something is left behind for them to understand why perf
>> commnads that require PEBS is not working properly.
>
> Can you elaborate a bit under which conditions this triggered? Typically
> we should be doing fairly well allocating such buffers with GFP_KERNEL,
> that should allow things like compaction to run and create higher order
> pages.
>
I think this triggers when you have fragmented memory and you have
perf_events active and inactive (i.e., 0 users = no nmi watchdog) frequently.
Each first user invokes the reserve_ds() function to reserve DS, PEBS, BTS.

The reason for BTS rather then PEBS is the size of the allocation.
PEBS allocates one page, i.e., less likely to get a failure than BTS
which allocates 4 pages, I think.

David and I discussed this. He can probably add more background
info, if needed.

> And the BTS (branch trace store) isn't _that_ large.
>
> That said, the patch is reasonable; although arguably we should maybe do
> the same to alloc_pebs_buffer().
--
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/