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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908122133310.7324@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date:   Mon, 12 Aug 2019 21:34:31 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Josh Hunt <joshhunt00@...il.com>
cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Long standing kernel warning: perfevents: irq loop stuck!

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Josh Hunt wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:55 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 12 Aug 2019, Josh Hunt wrote:
> > > Was there any progress made on debugging this issue? We are still
> > > seeing it on 4.19.44:
> >
> > I haven't seen anyone looking at this.
> >
> > Can you please try the patch Ingo posted:
> >
> >   https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150501070226.GB18957@gmail.com/
> >
> > and if it fixes the issue decrease the value from 128 to the point where it
> > comes back, i.e. 128 -> 64 -> 32 ...
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >         tglx
> 
> I just checked the machines where this problem occurs and they're both
> Nehalem boxes. I think Ingo's patch would only help Haswell machines.
> Please let me know if I misread the patch or if what I'm seeing is a
> different issue than the one Cong originally reported.

Find the NHM hack below.

Thanks,

	tglx
	
8<----------------

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 648260b5f367..93c1a4f0e73e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -3572,6 +3572,11 @@ static u64 bdw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 left)
 	return left;
 }
 
+static u64 nhm_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 left)
+{
+	return max(left, 128ULL);
+}
+
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event,	"config:0-7"	);
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(umask,	"config:8-15"	);
 PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(edge,	"config:18"	);
@@ -4606,6 +4611,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
 		x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = intel_nehalem_pebs_event_constraints;
 		x86_pmu.enable_all = intel_pmu_nhm_enable_all;
 		x86_pmu.extra_regs = intel_nehalem_extra_regs;
+		x86_pmu.limit_period = nhm_limit_period;
 
 		mem_attr = nhm_mem_events_attrs;