From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, eranian@google.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "perf/x86: Allow zero PEBS status with only single active event"
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 14:53:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9484ab6e-a6e5-bb72-106f-ed904e50fc0c@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YD/cnnuh/AHOL8hV@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
>
>> For some old CPUs (HSW and earlier), the PEBS status in a PEBS record
>> may be mistakenly set to 0. To minimize the impact of the defect, the
>> commit was introduced to try to avoid dropping the PEBS record for some
>> cases. It adds a check in the intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm(), and updates
>> the local pebs_status accordingly. However, it doesn't correct the PEBS
>> status in the PEBS record, which may trigger the crash, especially for
>> the large PEBS.
>>
>> It's possible that all the PEBS records in a large PEBS have the PEBS
>> status 0. If so, the first get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() in the
>> __intel_pmu_pebs_event() returns NULL. The at = NULL. Since it's a large
>> PEBS, the 'count' parameter must > 1. The second
>> get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() will crash.
>>
>> Two solutions were considered to fix the crash.
>> - Keep the SW workaround and add extra checks in the
>> get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() to workaround the issue. The
>> get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() is a critical path. The extra checks
>> will bring extra overhead for the latest CPUs which don't have the
>> defect. Also, the defect can only be observed on some old CPUs
>> (For example, the issue can be reproduced on an HSW client, but I
>> didn't observe the issue on my Haswell server machine.). The impact
>> of the defect should be limit.
>> This solution is dropped.
>> - Drop the SW workaround and revert the commit.
>> It seems that the commit never works, because the PEBS status in the
>> PEBS record never be changed. The get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() only
>> checks the PEBS status in the PEBS record. The record is dropped
>> eventually. Reverting the commit should not change the current
>> behavior.
>
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
>> @@ -2000,18 +2000,6 @@ static void intel_pmu_drain_pebs_nhm(struct pt_regs *iregs, struct perf_sample_d
>> continue;
>> }
>>
>> - /*
>> - * On some CPUs the PEBS status can be zero when PEBS is
>> - * racing with clearing of GLOBAL_STATUS.
>> - *
>> - * Normally we would drop that record, but in the
>> - * case when there is only a single active PEBS event
>> - * we can assume it's for that event.
>> - */
>> - if (!pebs_status && cpuc->pebs_enabled &&
>> - !(cpuc->pebs_enabled & (cpuc->pebs_enabled-1)))
>> - pebs_status = cpuc->pebs_enabled;
>
> Wouldn't something like:
>
> pebs_status = p->status = cpus->pebs_enabled;
>
I didn't consider it as a potential solution in this patch because I
don't think it's a proper way that SW modifies the buffer, which is
supposed to be manipulated by the HW.
It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
Vince, could you please help check whether Peter's suggestion fixes the
crash?
Thanks,
Kan
> actually fix things without adding overhead?
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-03 13:42 [PATCH] Revert "perf/x86: Allow zero PEBS status with only single active event" kan.liang
2021-03-03 18:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-03 19:53 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2021-03-03 20:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-16 7:22 ` Namhyung Kim
2021-03-16 12:28 ` Liang, Kan
2021-03-16 18:34 ` Stephane Eranian
2021-03-16 19:36 ` Liang, Kan
2021-03-17 2:04 ` Namhyung Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9484ab6e-a6e5-bb72-106f-ed904e50fc0c@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.weaver@maine.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox