[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240729223328.327835-1-lihuafei1@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 06:33:28 +0800
From: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>
To: <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>
CC: <acme@...nel.org>, <namhyung@...nel.org>, <mark.rutland@....com>,
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, <jolsa@...nel.org>,
<irogers@...gle.com>, <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <bp@...en8.de>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lihuafei1@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Restrict period on Haswell
On my Haswell machine, running the ltp test cve-2015-3290 concurrently
reports the following warnings:
perfevents: irq loop stuck!
WARNING: CPU: 31 PID: 32438 at arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:3174 intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x285/0x370
CPU: 31 UID: 0 PID: 32438 Comm: cve-2015-3290 Kdump: loaded Tainted: G S W 6.11.0-rc1+ #3
...
Call Trace:
<NMI>
? __warn+0xa4/0x220
? intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x285/0x370
? __report_bug+0x123/0x130
? intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x285/0x370
? __report_bug+0x123/0x130
? intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x285/0x370
? report_bug+0x3e/0xa0
? handle_bug+0x3c/0x70
? exc_invalid_op+0x18/0x50
? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20
? irq_work_claim+0x1e/0x40
? intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x285/0x370
perf_event_nmi_handler+0x3d/0x60
nmi_handle+0x104/0x330
? ___ratelimit+0xe4/0x1b0
default_do_nmi+0x40/0x100
exc_nmi+0x104/0x180
end_repeat_nmi+0xf/0x53
...
? intel_pmu_lbr_enable_all+0x2a/0x90
? __intel_pmu_enable_all.constprop.0+0x16d/0x1b0
? __intel_pmu_enable_all.constprop.0+0x16d/0x1b0
perf_ctx_enable+0x8e/0xc0
__perf_install_in_context+0x146/0x3e0
? __pfx___perf_install_in_context+0x10/0x10
remote_function+0x7c/0xa0
? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
generic_exec_single+0xf8/0x150
smp_call_function_single+0x1dc/0x230
? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_smp_call_function_single+0x10/0x10
? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
? lock_is_held_type+0x9e/0x120
? exclusive_event_installable+0x4f/0x140
perf_install_in_context+0x197/0x330
? __pfx_perf_install_in_context+0x10/0x10
? __pfx___perf_install_in_context+0x10/0x10
__do_sys_perf_event_open+0xb80/0x1100
? __pfx___do_sys_perf_event_open+0x10/0x10
? __pfx___lock_release+0x10/0x10
? lockdep_hardirqs_on_prepare+0x135/0x200
? ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64+0xee/0x100
? ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64+0x92/0x100
do_syscall_64+0x70/0x180
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
...
My machine has 32 physical cores, each with two logical cores. During
testing, it executes the CVE-2015-3290 test case 100 times concurrently.
This warning was already present in [1] and a patch was given there to
limit period to 128 on Haswell, but that patch was not merged into the
mainline. In [2] the period on Nehalem was limited to 32. I tested 16
and 32 period on my machine and found that the problem could be
reproduced with a limit of 16, but the problem did not reproduce when
set to 32. It looks like we can limit the cycles to 32 on Haswell as
well.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20150501070226.GB18957@gmail.com/#r
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/1566256411-18820-1-git-send-email-johunt@akamai.com/T/#mf1479ab3f25d3f7f3a899244081baa2e7b7bc0b9
Signed-off-by: Li Huafei <lihuafei1@...wei.com>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 0c9c2706d4ec..459dec2f07e3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -4625,6 +4625,11 @@ static void glc_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, s64 *left)
*left = max(*left, 128LL);
}
+static void hsw_limit_period(struct perf_event *event, s64 *left)
+{
+ *left = max(*left, 32LL);
+}
+
PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(event, "config:0-7" );
PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(umask, "config:8-15" );
PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(edge, "config:18" );
@@ -6767,6 +6772,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
x86_pmu.hw_config = hsw_hw_config;
x86_pmu.get_event_constraints = hsw_get_event_constraints;
x86_pmu.lbr_double_abort = true;
+ x86_pmu.limit_period = hsw_limit_period;
extra_attr = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_RTM) ?
hsw_format_attr : nhm_format_attr;
td_attr = hsw_events_attrs;
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists