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: <20150323123507.GE23123@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 13:35:07 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86: Add INST_RETIRED.ALL workarounds

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:39:00AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/5th-gen-core-family-spec-update.pdf
> > 
> > BDM11 and BDM55 (not 57) tell us that the PMU will generate crap output
> > if you don't do this. Non-fatal but gibberish.
> 
> Should be part of the changelog?

Sure, lemme go make that happen.

> So I did not say rounding up, I meant this sentence:
> 
> > > > + *   [...] We combine the two to enforce
> > > > + * a min-period of 128.
> 
> IMO ambiguously suggests that the result of the combination of the two 
> is to enforce a min-period of 128. Would somethin like this:
> 
> 	          We combine the two to enforce
>           a min-period of 128, rounded (down) to multiples of 64.
>           The original period is still kept by the core code and is 
>           approximated in the long run via these slightly fuzzed 
>           hardware-periods.

Like so then?

---
Subject: perf, x86: Add INST_RETIRED.ALL workarounds
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:18:06 -0800

On Broadwell INST_RETIRED.ALL cannot be used with any period
that doesn't have the lowest 6 bits cleared. And the period
should not be smaller than 128.

This is erratum BDM11 and BDM55;
http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/specification-updates/5th-gen-core-family-spec-update.pdf

BDM11: When using a period < 100; we may get incorrect PEBS/PMI
interrupts and/or an invalid counter state.
BDM55: When bit0-5 of the period are !0 we may get redundant PEBS
records on overflow.

Add a new callback to enforce this, and set it for Broadwell.

How does this handle the case when an app requests a specific
period with some of the bottom bits set?

Short answer:

Any useful instruction sampling period needs to be 4-6 orders
of magnitude larger than 128, as an PMI every 128 instructions
would instantly overwhelm the system and be throttled.
So the +-64 error from this is really small compared to the
period, much smaller than normal system jitter.

Long answer (by Peterz):

IFF we guarantee perf_event_attr::sample_period >= 128.

Suppose we start out with sample_period=192; then we'll set period_left
to 192, we'll end up with left = 128 (we truncate the lower bits). We
get an interrupt, find that period_left = 64 (>0 so we return 0 and
don't get an overflow handler), up that to 128. Then we trigger again,
at n=256. Then we find period_left = -64 (<=0 so we return 1 and do get
an overflow). We increment with sample_period so we get left = 128. We
fire again, at n=384, period_left = 0 (<=0 so we return 1 and get an
overflow). And on and on.

So while the individual interrupts are 'wrong' we get then with
interval=256,128 in exactly the right ratio to average out at 192. And
this works for everything >=128.

So the num_samples*fixed_period thing is still entirely correct +- 127,
which is good enough I'd say, as you already have that error anyhow.

So no need to 'fix' the tools, al we need to do is refuse to create
INST_RETIRED:ALL events with sample_period < 128.

Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c       |    9 +++++++++
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h       |    1 +
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c |   27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -451,6 +451,12 @@ int x86_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event
 	if (event->attr.type == PERF_TYPE_RAW)
 		event->hw.config |= event->attr.config & X86_RAW_EVENT_MASK;
 
+	if (event->attr.sample_period && x86_pmu.limit_period) {
+		if (x86_pmu.limit_period(event, event->attr.sample_period) >
+				event->attr.sample_period)
+			return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
 	return x86_setup_perfctr(event);
 }
 
@@ -988,6 +994,9 @@ int x86_perf_event_set_period(struct per
 	if (left > x86_pmu.max_period)
 		left = x86_pmu.max_period;
 
+	if (x86_pmu.limit_period)
+		left = x86_pmu.limit_period(event, left);
+
 	per_cpu(pmc_prev_left[idx], smp_processor_id()) = left;
 
 	/*
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
@@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
 	struct x86_pmu_quirk *quirks;
 	int		perfctr_second_write;
 	bool		late_ack;
+	unsigned	(*limit_period)(struct perf_event *event, unsigned l);
 
 	/*
 	 * sysfs attrs
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
@@ -2097,6 +2097,32 @@ hsw_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_
 	return c;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Broadwell:
+ *
+ * The INST_RETIRED.ALL period always needs to have lowest 6 bits cleared
+ * (BDM55) and it must not use a period smaller than 100 (BDM11). We combine
+ * the two to enforce a minimum period of 128 (the smallest value that has bits
+ * 0-5 cleared and >= 100).
+ *
+ * Because of how the code in x86_perf_event_set_period() works, the truncation
+ * of the lower 6 bits is 'harmless' as we'll occasionally add a longer period
+ * to make up for the 'lost' events due to carrying the 'error' in period_left.
+ *
+ * Therefore the effective (average) period matches the requested period,
+ * despite coarser hardware granularity.
+ */
+static unsigned bdw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, unsigned left)
+{
+	if ((event->hw.config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) ==
+			X86_CONFIG(.event=0xc0, .umask=0x01)) {
+		if (left < 128)
+			left = 128;
+		left &= ~0x3fu;
+	}
+	return left;
+}
+
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event,	"config:0-7"	);
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(umask,	"config:8-15"	);
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(edge,	"config:18"	);
@@ -2775,6 +2801,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
 		x86_pmu.hw_config = hsw_hw_config;
 		x86_pmu.get_event_constraints = hsw_get_event_constraints;
 		x86_pmu.cpu_events = hsw_events_attrs;
+		x86_pmu.limit_period = bdw_limit_period;
 		pr_cont("Broadwell events, ");
 		break;
 
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ