linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf/core: Flush PMU internal buffers for per-CPU events

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87a6v81gou.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 22:00:17 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "Liang\, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Gabriel Marin <gmx@...gle.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf/core: Flush PMU internal buffers for per-CPU events

Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> writes:
> Hi Peter and Kan,
>
> (Adding PPC folks)
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:01 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 4:54 AM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 11/11/2020 11:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:49:31AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> - When the large PEBS was introduced (9c964efa4330), the sched_task() should
>> > >> be invoked to flush the PEBS buffer in each context switch. However, The
>> > >> perf_sched_events in account_event() is not updated accordingly. The
>> > >> perf_event_task_sched_* never be invoked for a pure per-CPU context. Only
>> > >> per-task event works.
>> > >>     At that time, the perf_pmu_sched_task() is outside of
>> > >> perf_event_context_sched_in/out. It means that perf has to double
>> > >> perf_pmu_disable() for per-task event.
>> > >
>> > >> - The patch 1 tries to fix broken per-CPU events. The CPU context cannot be
>> > >> retrieved from the task->perf_event_ctxp. So it has to be tracked in the
>> > >> sched_cb_list. Yes, the code is very similar to the original codes, but it
>> > >> is actually the new code for per-CPU events. The optimization for per-task
>> > >> events is still kept.
>> > >>    For the case, which has both a CPU context and a task context, yes, the
>> > >> __perf_pmu_sched_task() in this patch is not invoked. Because the
>> > >> sched_task() only need to be invoked once in a context switch. The
>> > >> sched_task() will be eventually invoked in the task context.
>> > >
>> > > The thing is; your first two patches rely on PERF_ATTACH_SCHED_CB and
>> > > only set that for large pebs. Are you sure the other users (Intel LBR
>> > > and PowerPC BHRB) don't need it?
>> >
>> > I didn't set it for LBR, because the perf_sched_events is always enabled
>> > for LBR. But, yes, we should explicitly set the PERF_ATTACH_SCHED_CB
>> > for LBR.
>> >
>> >         if (has_branch_stack(event))
>> >                 inc = true;
>> >
>> > >
>> > > If they indeed do not require the pmu::sched_task() callback for CPU
>> > > events, then I still think the whole perf_sched_cb_{inc,dec}() interface
>> >
>> > No, LBR requires the pmu::sched_task() callback for CPU events.
>> >
>> > Now, The LBR registers have to be reset in sched in even for CPU events.
>> >
>> > To fix the shorter LBR callstack issue for CPU events, we also need to
>> > save/restore LBRs in pmu::sched_task().
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1578495789-95006-4-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/
>> >
>> > > is confusing at best.
>> > >
>> > > Can't we do something like this instead?
>> > >
>> > I think the below patch may have two issues.
>> > - PERF_ATTACH_SCHED_CB is required for LBR (maybe PowerPC BHRB as well) now.
>> > - We may disable the large PEBS later if not all PEBS events support
>> > large PEBS. The PMU need a way to notify the generic code to decrease
>> > the nr_sched_task.
>>
>> Any updates on this?  I've reviewed and tested Kan's patches
>> and they all look good.
>>
>> Maybe we can talk to PPC folks to confirm the BHRB case?
>
> Can we move this forward?  I saw patch 3/3 also adds PERF_ATTACH_SCHED_CB
> for PowerPC too.  But it'd be nice if ppc folks can confirm the change.

Sorry I've read the whole thread, but I'm still not entirely sure I
understand the question.

cheers