linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Powerpc/perf: Wire up PMI throttling

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]

Message-Id: <90eaac98-4c9a-566d-734a-f435b0f20603@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:26:17 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        paulus@...ba.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com, muriloo@...ux.ibm.com,
        christophe.leroy@....fr, npiggin@...il.com, leitao@...ian.org,
        aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Powerpc/perf: Wire up PMI throttling



On 11/15/18 6:13 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Commit 14c63f17b1fde ("perf: Drop sample rate when sampling is too
>> slow") introduced a way to throttle PMU interrupts if we're spending
>> too much time just processing those. Wire up powerpc PMI handler to
>> use this infrastructure.
> 
> To be clear we have throttling of the *rate* of interrupts, but this
> adds throttling based on the *time taken* to process the interrupts. Or
> at least that's my understanding?

Right. This throttles based on time taken to process the interrupts.

> 
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>> index 9a86572db1ef..44f85fa22356 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>>  #include <linux/sched/debug.h>
>> +#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>  #include <linux/mm.h>
>>  #include <linux/pkeys.h>
>> @@ -1803,9 +1804,12 @@ void vsx_unavailable_tm(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  
>>  void performance_monitor_exception(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  {
>> +	u64 start_clock;
>>  	__this_cpu_inc(irq_stat.pmu_irqs);
>>  
>> +	start_clock = sched_clock();
>>  	perf_irq(regs);
>> +	perf_sample_event_took(sched_clock() - start_clock);
>>  }
> 
> Despite the name, perf_irq() may not actually be the perf IRQ handler :)
> 
> It's a function pointer which might call perf or might call oprofile, or
> a dummy handler.
> 
> I don't think we should be calling perf_sample_event_took() if we're not
> actually using perf, that is wasteful at best.
> 
> So the timing logic should go in the perf specific handler I think.
> ie. perf_event_interrupt().

Makes sense. I'll re-send with that change.

Thanks,
Ravi