linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency

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, 2 Apr 2019 18:09:36 +0300
From:   Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:     Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] x86/perf/amd: AMD PMC counters and NMI latency

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 10:53:38AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 03:03:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > I have vague memories of the P4 thing crashing with Vince's perf_fuzzer,
> > > but maybe I'm wrong.
> > 
> > No, you're correct. p4 was crashing many times before we manage to make
> > it more-less stable. The main problem though that to find working p4 box
> > is really a problem.
> 
> I do have some a functioning p4 system I can test on.
> I can easily run the fuzzer and report crashes, but I only have limited 
> time/skills to actually fix the problems it turns up.

You know, running fuzzer on p4 might worth in anycase. As to potential
problems to fix -- i could try find some time slot for, still quite
limited too 'cause of many other duties :(

> One nice thing is that as of Linux 5.0 *finally* the fuzzer can run 
> indefinitely on most modern Intel chips without crashing (still triggers a 
> few warnings).  So finally we have the ability to tell when a new crash is 
> a regression and potentially can bisect it.  Although obviously this 
> doesn't necessarily apply to the p4.
> 
> I do think the number of people trying to run perf on a p4 is probably 
> pretty small these days.

Quite agree. Moreover current p4 perf code doesn't cover all potential
functionality (for example cascaded counters) and nobody ever complained
about it, I think exactly because not that many p4 boxes left and putting
efforts into this perf module development doesn't look like a good investment,
better to stick with more modern cpus and deprecate p4 with small steps.