[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a655469-de9d-c80-dd7f-26436d6f03a@maine.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 17:14:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [perf] perf_fuzzer causes crash in intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm()
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 02:49:47PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote:
> I'd like to reproduce it on my machine.
> Is this issue only found in a Haswell client machine?
>
> To reproduce the issue, can I use ./perf_fuzzer under perf_event_tests/fuzzer?
> Do I need to apply any parameters with ./perf_fuzzer?
>
> Usually how long does it take to reproduce the issue?
On my machine if I run the commands
echo 1 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_paranoid
echo 1000 > /proc/sys/kernel/perf_event_max_sample_rate
./perf_fuzzer -s 30000 -r 1611784483
it is repeatable within a minute, but because of the nature of the fuzzer
it probably won't work for you because the random events will diverge
based on the different configs of the system.
I can try to generate a simple reproducer, I've just been extremely busy
here at work and haven't had the chance.
If you want to try to reproduce it the hard way, run the
./fast_repro99.sh
script in the perf_fuzzer directory. It will start fuzzing. My machine
turned up the issue within a day or so.
Vince
Powered by blists - more mailing lists