linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: perf issue on big.LITTLE since 26657848502b7847

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: <20160425190334.GK3448@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:03:34 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: perf issue on big.LITTLE since 26657848502b7847

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 06:58:37PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> When booting an arm64 defconfig linux-next (next-20160422) on an ARM
> Juno system, I hit a WARN_ON_ONCE in perf_pmu_register (see backtrace at
> the end of this email).
> 
> This was introduced by commit 26657848502b7847 ("perf/core: Verify we
> have a single perf_hw_context PMU") where we forcefully prevent multiple
> PMUs from sharing perf_hw_context (with a warning), and force additional
> PMUs to use perf_invalid_context.
> 
> Generally that makes sense, but unfortunately it breaks systems which
> genuinely do have disparate HW (i.e. CPU) PMUs, such as Juno, which has
> both Cortex-A57 PMUs and Cortex-A53 PMUs. We register a logical PMU for
> each microarchitecture, which accept CPU-bound events for relevant CPUs,
> or task-bound events. One task may have events for multiple logical PMUs
> (and hence, they must share perf_hw_context).
> 
> The commit message for 26657848502b7847 mentions that the check is
> intended to ensure that round-robin scheduling of events works, though
> we already work around that issue by other means. In commit
> 66eb579e66ecfea5 ("perf: allow for PMU-specific event filtering"), we
> added a PMU-specific callback specifically to avoid this issue, which we
> wired up for ARM in commit c904e32a69b7c779 ("arm: perf: filter
> unschedulable events").
> 
> Are you happy to revert 26657848502b787 for the timebeing? Or to somehow
> predicate the check such that it doesn't adversely affect those HW PMUs?

I'm happy with a chicken bit for now, its already found two real issues,
so I'd like to keep it.