linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: arm_pmu: Only show online CPUs in device's "cpus" attribute

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: <20240410153419.GA25171@willie-the-truck>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:34:19 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jonathan.cameron@...wei.com,
	prime.zeng@...ilicon.com, linuxarm@...wei.com,
	yangyicong@...ilicon.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: arm_pmu: Only show online CPUs in device's
 "cpus" attribute

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 05:58:32PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> From: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
> 
> When there're CPUs offline after system booting, perf will failed:
> [root@...alhost ~]# /home/yang/perf stat -a -e armv8_pmuv3_0/cycles/
> Error:
> The sys_perf_event_open() syscall returned with 19 (No such device) for event (cpu-clock).
> /bin/dmesg | grep -i perf may provide additional information.
> 
> This is due to PMU's "cpus" is not updated and still contains offline
> CPUs and perf will try to open perf event on the offlined CPUs.
> 
> Make "cpus" attribute only shows online CPUs and introduced a new
> "supported_cpus" where users can get the range of the CPUs this
> PMU supported monitoring.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>
> ---
>  drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hmm. Is the complexity in the driver really worth it here? CPUs can be
onlined and offlined after the perf_event_open() syscall has been
executed, so this feels like something userspace should be aware of and
handle on a best-effort basis anyway.

Does x86 get away with this because CPU0 is never offlined?

Will