linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Add CPU hotplug support for events

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: <aee872be-c34d-729b-575d-df488a46f2cf@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:48:21 -0800
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...eaurora.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, psodagud@...eaurora.org,
        tsoni@...eaurora.org, skannan@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf: Add CPU hotplug support for events



On 02/16/2018 12:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:06:29AM -0800, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
>>> No this is absolutely disguisting. You can simply keep the events in the
>>> dead CPU's context. It's really not that hard.
>> Keeping the events in the dead CPU's context was also an idea that we had.
>> However, detaching that event from the PMU when the CPU is offline would be
>> a pain. Consider the scenario in which an event is about to be destroyed
>> when the CPU is offline (yet still attached to the CPU). During it's
>> destruction, a cross-cpu call is made (from perf_remove_from_context()) to
>> the offlined CPU to detach the event from the CPU's PMU. As the CPU is
>> offline, that would not be possible, and again a separate logic has to be
>> written for cleaning up the events whose CPUs are offlined.
> 
> That is actually really simple to deal with. The real problems are with
> semantics, is an event enabled when the CPU is dead? Can you
> disable/enable an event on a dead CPU.
> 
> The below patch (_completely_ untested) should do most of it, but needs
> help with the details. I suspect we want to allow enable/disable on
> events that are on a dead CPU, and equally I think we want to account
> the time an enabled event spends on a dead CPU to go towards the
> 'enabled' bucket.
I've gone through your diff, and it gave me a hint of similar texture 
what we are trying to do (except for maintaining an offline event list). 
Nevertheless, I tried to test your patch. I created an hw event, and 
tried to offline the CPU in parallel, and I immediately hit a watchdog 
soft lockup bug! Tried the same this by first switching off the CPU 
(without any event created), and I hit into similar issue. I am sure we 
can fix it, but apart from the "why we are doing hotplug?" question, was 
was there specifically any issue with our patch?

> 
>>> Also, you _still_ don't explain why you care about dead CPUs.
>>>
I wanted to understand, if we no longer care about hotplugging of CPUs, 
then why do we still have exported symbols such as cpu_up() and 
cpu_down()? Moreover, we also have the hotplug interface exposed to 
users-space as well (through sysfs). As long as these interfaces exist, 
there's always a potential chance of bringing the CPU up/down. Can you 
please clear this thing up for me?

-- Raghavendra

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project