linux-kernel - Re: Long standing kernel warning: perfevents: irq loop stuck!

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: <20180226203937.GA21543@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 12:39:37 -0800
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, jolsa@...hat.com,
        bigeasy@...utronix.de, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Long standing kernel warning: perfevents: irq loop stuck!

> Given the HSD143 errata and its possible relevance, have you tried
> changing the magic number to 32, does it then still fix things?
> 
> No real objection to the patch as such, it just needs a coherent comment
> and a tested-by tag I think.

128 min period will affect a lot of valid use cases with slower ticking
events.  I often use smaller periods there.

It would be better to debug this properly.

Or at a minimum only do the limitation for the events that tick really
fast (like cycles, uops retired etc.)

-Andi