linux-kernel - Re: 4.7-rc1/s390: WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1 at kernel/events/core.c:8485 perf_pmu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:29:36 +0200
From:	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org >> Linux Kernel Mailing List" 
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 4.7-rc1/s390: WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1 at
 kernel/events/core.c:8485 perf_pmu_register+0x420/0x428

Hi Peter,

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:21:24AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:37:41AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > commit 26657848502b ("perf/core: Verify we have a single perf_hw_context PMU") seems to 
> > trigger the newly created warning on a z196.
> > 
> > 
> > [    2.202363] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [    2.202372] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 1 at kernel/events/core.c:8485 perf_pmu_register+0x420/0x428
> > [    2.202373] Modules linked in:
> > [    2.202377] CPU: 5 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.7.0-rc1+ #2
> > [    2.202379] task: 00000009c5240000 ti: 00000009c5234000 task.ti: 00000009c5234000
> > [    2.202381] Krnl PSW : 0704c00180000000 0000000000220c50 (perf_pmu_register+0x420/0x428)
> > [    2.202385]            R:0 T:1 IO:1 EX:1 Key:0 M:1 W:0 P:0 AS:3 CC:0 PM:0 RI:0 EA:3
> > Krnl GPRS: ffffffffffffffff 0000000000b15ac6 0000000000000000 00000009cb440000
> > [    2.202388]            000000000022087a 0000000000000000 0000000000b78fa0 0000000000000000
> > [    2.202390]            0000000000a9aa90 0000000000000084 0000000000000005 000000000088a97a
> > [    2.202405]            0000000000000004 0000000000749dd0 000000000022087a 00000009c5237cc0
> > [    2.202415] Krnl Code: 0000000000220c44: a7f4ff54            brc     15,220aec
> >            0000000000220c48: 92011000           mvi     0(%r1),1
> >           #0000000000220c4c: a7f40001           brc     15,220c4e
> >           >0000000000220c50: a7f4ff12           brc     15,220a74
> >            0000000000220c54: 0707               bcr     0,%r7
> >            0000000000220c56: 0707               bcr     0,%r7
> >            0000000000220c58: ebdff0800024       stmg    %r13,%r15,128(%r15)
> >            0000000000220c5e: a7f13fe0           tmll    %r15,16352
> > [    2.202431] Call Trace:
> > [    2.202433] ([<000000000022087a>] perf_pmu_register+0x4a/0x428)
> > [    2.202438] ([<0000000000b2c25c>] init_cpum_sampling_pmu+0x14c/0x1f8)
> > [    2.202441] ([<0000000000100248>] do_one_initcall+0x48/0x140)
> > [    2.202444] ([<0000000000b25d26>] kernel_init_freeable+0x1e6/0x2a0)
> > [    2.202449] ([<000000000072bda4>] kernel_init+0x24/0x138)
> > [    2.202453] ([<000000000073495e>] kernel_thread_starter+0x6/0xc)
> > [    2.202455] ([<0000000000734958>] kernel_thread_starter+0x0/0xc)
> > [    2.202456] Last Breaking-Event-Address:
> > [    2.202458]  [<0000000000220c4c>] perf_pmu_register+0x41c/0x428
> > [    2.202460] ---[ end trace 0c6ef9f5b771ad97 ]---
> > 
> > Looks like perf_pmu_register does not like to be called twice (once for the counter
> > and once for the sampling facility).
> 
> Twice isn't the problem per se, its trying to register two PMUs for
> perf_hw_context that is the problem.
> 
> The perf core does not expect or deal well with that.
> 
> The perf core expects a single HW PMU in that when it schedules
> hw_context events, and encounters an failure to pmu::add() (because the
> hw pmu is 'full') it stops trying to add more events.

On s390, there are actually two distinct measurement facilities and, thus,
two HW PMUs for each.  There is the hardware counter and hardware sampling
facility/PMU.

> 
> So if you mix two PMUs in, you get horrible PMU utilization issues,
> because as soon as one is full, it will not try and add more events and
> can leave the other empty.

I also noticed this issue that perf core can only have one PMU per
perf_hardware_context.  The point here is how to solve this issue on s390.
It would not be a good approach to pull them together because their are
different hardware interfaces (different facilities, different instructions).

Sharing is also not an option like ARM does this for its littleBIG PMU. One
option I could pursue is to assign perf_invalid_context.  The question would
then how the perf core would deal with such contexts.  Perhaps another,
non-perf_hardware_context would also help.

Peter, what options do you think could help to dial with two HW PMUs?

Thanks and kind regards,
  Hendrik

-- 
Hendrik Brueckner
brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com      | IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Linux on z Systems Development    | Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen


IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294