linux-kernel - perf tool issue following 'perf stat: Fix --no-scale' patch integration

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2680dc183a9e45b999be4939cbe67b44@SFHDAG5NODE1.st.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 14:58:46 +0000
From:   Gerald BAEZA <gerald.baeza@...com>
To:     "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "mathieu.poirier@...aro.org" <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "suzuki.poulose@....com" <suzuki.poulose@....com>
CC:     Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>
Subject: perf tool issue following 'perf stat: Fix --no-scale' patch
 integration

Dear Andi and all perf tool / arm debug  experts

This is about the following patch :
       perf stat: Fix --no-scale
       SHA-1 : 75998bb263bf48c1c85d78cd2d2f3a97d3747cab

Since it is applied in the kernel, I noticed that perf tool fails on my ARMv7 platform (STM32MP1 with Cortex-A7 and NEON) with the following error : 
       root@...32mp1:~# perf stat --no-scale sleep 1
       [10827.350202] Alignment trap: perf (631) PC=0x001139e8 Instr=0xf4640adf Address=0x0021a804 1
       [10827.357704] Alignment trap: not handling instruction f4640adf at [<001139e8>]
       [10827.364867] 8<--- cut here ---
       [10827.367875] Unhandled fault: alignment exception (0x001) at 0x0021a804
       [10827.374427] pgd = 8abc1568
       [10827.377090] [0021a804] *pgd=ff2e8835
       Bus error

The same error happens with or without the --no-scale option.
This is to give the context. I do not blame your patch, Andi :)

I analyzed the root cause of this issue, summarized below, but then I need your lights to imagine the best correction.

One of the changes in the patch concerns tools/perf/util/stat.c :
                                case AGGR_GLOBAL:
                                      aggr->val += count->val;
       -                              if (config->scale) {
       -                                              aggr->ena += count->ena;
       -                                              aggr->run += count->run;
       -                              }
       +                             aggr->ena += count->ena;
       +                             aggr->run += count->run;

The consequence of this new writing is that GCC generates a NEON vectored instruction to load count->val and count->ena values in 64 bits registers, since they are sequential in memory and systematically initialized now:
                f4640adf              vld1.64  {d16-d17}, [r4 :64]

The problem comes from the ':64' specifying that the parameter has to be 8 bytes aligned.
The 'count' pointer points inside the 'contents[]' array from the 'struct xyarray'.
If I force this field to be 64 bits aligned, then perf works again:
struct xyarray {
                size_t row_size;
                size_t entry_size;
                size_t entries;
                size_t max_x;
                size_t max_y;
-              char contents[] ;
+             char contents[] __attribute__((aligned(64)));
};

But the xyarray structure is generic so I think this patch cannot be the final one.
Some GCC versions have a -mgeneral-regs-only option to forbid the generation of NEON instructions while compiling one file, but this does not seem to be mainlined (?).

Well, I am hesitating and don't know what kind of correction I should apply.
I also don't know very well perf tool source code, so this sets some borders to my imagination  :)

Can you help me please ?

Best regards

Gérald