[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703131432371.12942@macbook-air>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:35:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>, jolsa@...hat.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent
check
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>
> > 2)If it is, where we will fix it more appropriate, perf_fuzzer(not set
> > 0 or 100) or kernel(limit 1 to 99), or maybe it is the bug of
> > hardware(too many hardware interruptions)?
>
> I think the best would be if the fuzzer would not set 0,100, those are
> clearly 'unsafe' settings and you pretty much get to keep the pieces.
>
> I would like to preserve these settings for people that 'know' what
> they're doing and are willing to take the risk, but clearly, when you
> take the guard-rails off, things can come apart.
sorry for the delay responding, these e-mails ended up in the spam folder
somehow.
I could add a new "avoid stupid things as root" flag for the perf_fuzzer.
Besides this issue, are there other known things to skip?
Generally running a fuzzer as root can be a bad idea which is why I don't
test that use case very often.
I think there were other issues in the past, like certain ftrace
combinations being known to lock the system.
Vince
Powered by blists - more mailing lists