linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf: xgene: Add APM X-Gene SoC Performance Monitoring Unit driver

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:	Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:14:01 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:	Tai Tri Nguyen <ttnguyen@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	patches <patches@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf: xgene: Add APM X-Gene SoC Performance
 Monitoring Unit driver

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 02:21:38PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 28/06/16 12:13, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 10:54:07AM -0700, Tai Tri Nguyen wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 10:54:20AM -0700, Tai Tri Nguyen wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:06:58AM -0700, Tai Nguyen wrote:
> >>>>>> +static irqreturn_t xgene_pmu_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> +     struct xgene_pmu_dev_ctx *ctx, *temp_ctx;
> >>>>>> +     struct xgene_pmu *xgene_pmu = dev_id;
> >>>>>> +     u32 val;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +     xgene_pmu_mask_int(xgene_pmu);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you need to mask the IRQ? This handler is called in hard IRQ
> >>>>> context.
> >>>>
> >>>> Right. Let me change to use raw_spin_lock_irqsave here.
> >>>
> >>> Interesting; I see we do that in the CCI PMU driver. What are we trying
> >>> to protect?
> >>>
> >>> We don't do that in the CPU PMU drivers, and I'm missng something here.
> >>> Hopefully I'm just being thick...
> >>
> >> For me, we can't guarantee that the interrupt doesn't happen on the other CPUs.
> >> The irqbalancer may change the SMP affinity.
> > 
> > The perf core requires things to occur on the same CPU for correct
> > synchronisation.
> > 
> > If an IRQ balancer can change the IRQ affinity behind our back, we have
> > much bigger problems that affect other uncore PMU drivers.
> > 
> > Marc, is there a sensible way to prevent irq balancers from changing the
> > affinity of an IRQ, e.g. a kernel-side pinning mechanism, or some way we
> > can be notified and reject changes?
> 
> You can get notified (see irq_set_affinity_notifier), but there no way
> to veto the change.

:(

> What should probably be done is to set the affinity hint
> (irq_set_affinity_hint), and use the notifier to migrate the context
> if possible. Note that you'll be called in process context, which will
> race against interrupts being delivered on the new CPU.

I'll have to go digging into what exactly perf_pmu_migrate_context
requires. Given the race, I'm not sure if that's going to work. It's
certainly not going to be self contained.

That also won't work for CPU PMUs, where it makes no sense to migrate
context or IRQs.  For those we appear to already be using have
IRQF_NOBALANCING, which sounds like exactly what we want.

That appears to influence irq_can_set_affinity(), which the procfs
helpers check.

Tai, can you try requesting the IRQ with the IRQF_NOBALANCING flag?

Thanks,
Mark.