[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150501070226.GB18957@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 09:02:26 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: perf: WARNING perfevents: irq loop stuck!
* Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu> wrote:
> So this is just a warning, and I've reported it before, but the
> perf_fuzzer triggers this fairly regularly on my Haswell system.
>
> It looks like fixed counter 0 (retired instructions) being set to
> 0000fffffffffffe occasionally causes an irq loop storm and gets
> stuck until the PMU state is cleared.
So 0000fffffffffffe corresponds to 2 events left until overflow,
right? And on Haswell we don't set x86_pmu.limit_period AFAICS, so we
allow these super short periods.
Maybe like on Broadwell we need a quirk on Nehalem/Haswell as well,
one similar to bdw_limit_period()? Something like the patch below?
Totally untested and such. I picked 128 because of Broadwell, but
lower values might work as well. You could try to increase it to 3 and
upwards and see which one stops triggering stuck NMI loops?
Thanks,
Ingo
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
index 960e85de13fb..26b13ea8299c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
@@ -2479,6 +2479,15 @@ hsw_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
return c;
}
+/*
+ * Really short periods might create infinite PMC NMI loops on Haswell,
+ * so limit them to 128. There's no official erratum for this AFAIK.
+ */
+static unsigned int hsw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, unsigned int left)
+{
+ return max(left, 128U);
+}
+
/*
* Broadwell:
@@ -2495,7 +2504,7 @@ hsw_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
* Therefore the effective (average) period matches the requested period,
* despite coarser hardware granularity.
*/
-static unsigned bdw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, unsigned left)
+static unsigned int bdw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, unsigned left)
{
if ((event->hw.config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) ==
X86_CONFIG(.event=0xc0, .umask=0x01)) {
@@ -3265,6 +3274,7 @@ __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 = hsw_limit_period;
x86_pmu.lbr_double_abort = true;
pr_cont("Haswell 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