linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf tests: Add Intel CQM and arch tests

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, 22 Jul 2015 15:24:44 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf tests: Add Intel CQM and arch tests

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:38:59AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
> 
> Peter reports that it's possible to trigger a WARN_ON_ONCE() in the
> Intel CQM code by combining a hardware event and an Intel CQM (software)
> event into a group. Unfortunately, the perf tools are not able to create
> this bundle and we need to manually construct a test case.
> 
> For posterity, record Peter's proof of concept test case in tools/perf
> so that it presents a model for how we can perform architecture-specific
> tests, or "arch tests", in perf in the future.
> 
> The particular issue triggered in the test case is that when the counter
> for the hardware event overflows and triggers a PMI we'll read both the
> hardware event and the software event counters. Unfortunately, for CQM
> that involves performing an IPI to read the CQM event counters on all
> sockets, which in NMI context triggers the WARN_ON_ONCE().
> 
> This patch is marked as RFC because I'd really like to solicit opinions
> on this approach and hear feedback on whether this is the correct way to
> structure these arch tests. I realise that we've already got tests for
> the TSC, etc that are x86-specific but I didn't want to change the order
> of the tests (say, by moving test__perf_time_to_tsc() into ARCH_TESTS)
> in case that broke some kind of ABI.

I wouldn't consider the order of tests being ABI,
let's break it and watch ;-)

SNIP

> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..9d43f759e014
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> +#ifndef ARCH_TESTS_H
> +#define ARCH_TESTS_H
> +
> +/* Tests */
> +int test__intel_cqm_count_nmi_context(void);
> +
> +#define ARCH_TESTS						\
> +	{							\
> +		.desc = "Test intel cqm nmi context read",	\
> +		.func = test__intel_cqm_count_nmi_context,	\
> +	},
> +

hum, I dont like much this being stuffed in macro,
but dont have any technical reason against ;-)

maybe we could add 'struct test arch_tests[]' array, that'd be
initialized by each arch and executed in addition to the current
'struct test tests[]'

jirka
--
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/