On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] 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?
>
On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> > > +++ 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.
Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
that either ;-)
> It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
Hi Peter and Kan,
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > +++ 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.
>
> Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
> that either ;-)
>
> > It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
>
> So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
> chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
I got a similar issue on ivybridge machines which caused kernel crash.
My case it's related to the branch stack with PEBS events but I think
it's the same issue. And I can confirm that the above approach of
updating p->status fixed the problem.
I've talked to Stephane about this, and he wants to make it more
robust when we see stale (or invalid) PEBS records. I'll send the
patch soon.
Thanks,
Namhyung
On 3/16/2021 3:22 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Peter and Kan,
>
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>> On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>>> +++ 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.
>>
>> Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
>> that either ;-)
>>
>>> It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
>>
>> So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
>> chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
>
> I got a similar issue on ivybridge machines which caused kernel crash.
> My case it's related to the branch stack with PEBS events but I think
> it's the same issue. And I can confirm that the above approach of
> updating p->status fixed the problem.
>
> I've talked to Stephane about this, and he wants to make it more
> robust when we see stale (or invalid) PEBS records. I'll send the
> patch soon.
>
Hi Namhyung,
In case you didn't see it, I've already submitted a patch to fix the
issue last Friday.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
But if you have a more robust proposal, please feel free to submit it.
BTW: The patch set from last Friday also fixed another bug found by the
perf_fuzzer test. You may be interested.
Thanks,
Kan
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:28 AM Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/16/2021 3:22 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Peter and Kan,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >>> On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> +++ 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.
> >>
> >> Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
> >> that either ;-)
> >>
> >>> It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
> >>
> >> So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
> >> chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
> >
> > I got a similar issue on ivybridge machines which caused kernel crash.
> > My case it's related to the branch stack with PEBS events but I think
> > it's the same issue. And I can confirm that the above approach of
> > updating p->status fixed the problem.
> >
> > I've talked to Stephane about this, and he wants to make it more
> > robust when we see stale (or invalid) PEBS records. I'll send the
> > patch soon.
> >
>
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> In case you didn't see it, I've already submitted a patch to fix the
> issue last Friday.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> But if you have a more robust proposal, please feel free to submit it.
>
This fixes the problem on the older systems. The other problem we
identified related to the
PEBS sample processing code is that you can end up with uninitialized
perf_sample_data
struct passed to perf_event_overflow():
setup_pebs_fixed_sample_data(pebs, data)
{
if (!pebs)
return;
perf_sample_data_init(data); <<< must be moved before the if (!pebs)
...
}
__intel_pmu_pebs_event(pebs, data)
{
setup_sample(pebs, data)
perf_event_overflow(data);
...
}
If there is any other reason to get a pebs = NULL in fix_sample_data()
or adaptive_sample_data(), then
you must call perf_sample_data_init(data) BEFORE you return otherwise
you end up in perf_event_overflow()
with uninitialized data and you may die as follows:
[<ffffffff812f283d>] ? perf_output_copy+0x4d/0xb0
[<ffffffff812e0fb1>] perf_output_sample+0x561/0xab0
[<ffffffff812e0952>] ? __perf_event_header__init_id+0x112/0x130
[<ffffffff812e1be1>] ? perf_prepare_sample+0x1b1/0x730
[<ffffffff812e21b9>] perf_event_output_forward+0x59/0x80
[<ffffffff812e0634>] ? perf_event_update_userpage+0xf4/0x110
[<ffffffff812e4468>] perf_event_overflow+0x88/0xe0
[<ffffffff810175b8>] __intel_pmu_pebs_event+0x328/0x380
This all stems from get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() potentially
returning NULL but the NULL is not handled correctly
by the callers. This is what I'd like to see cleaned up in
__intel_pmu_pebs_event() to avoid future problems.
I have a patch that moves the perf_sample_data_init() and I can send
it to LKML but it would also need the cleanup
for get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() to be complete.
Thanks.
On 3/16/2021 2:34 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:28 AM Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/16/2021 3:22 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Peter and Kan,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> +++ 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.
>>>>
>>>> Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
>>>> that either ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
>>>>
>>>> So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
>>>> chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
>>>
>>> I got a similar issue on ivybridge machines which caused kernel crash.
>>> My case it's related to the branch stack with PEBS events but I think
>>> it's the same issue. And I can confirm that the above approach of
>>> updating p->status fixed the problem.
>>>
>>> I've talked to Stephane about this, and he wants to make it more
>>> robust when we see stale (or invalid) PEBS records. I'll send the
>>> patch soon.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Namhyung,
>>
>> In case you didn't see it, I've already submitted a patch to fix the
>> issue last Friday.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
>> But if you have a more robust proposal, please feel free to submit it.
>>
> This fixes the problem on the older systems. The other problem we
> identified related to the
> PEBS sample processing code is that you can end up with uninitialized
> perf_sample_data
> struct passed to perf_event_overflow():
>
> setup_pebs_fixed_sample_data(pebs, data)
> {
> if (!pebs)
> return;
> perf_sample_data_init(data); <<< must be moved before the if (!pebs)
> ...
> }
>
> __intel_pmu_pebs_event(pebs, data)
> {
> setup_sample(pebs, data)
> perf_event_overflow(data);
> ...
> }
>
> If there is any other reason to get a pebs = NULL in fix_sample_data()
> or adaptive_sample_data(), then
> you must call perf_sample_data_init(data) BEFORE you return otherwise
> you end up in perf_event_overflow()
> with uninitialized data and you may die as follows:
>
> [<ffffffff812f283d>] ? perf_output_copy+0x4d/0xb0
> [<ffffffff812e0fb1>] perf_output_sample+0x561/0xab0
> [<ffffffff812e0952>] ? __perf_event_header__init_id+0x112/0x130
> [<ffffffff812e1be1>] ? perf_prepare_sample+0x1b1/0x730
> [<ffffffff812e21b9>] perf_event_output_forward+0x59/0x80
> [<ffffffff812e0634>] ? perf_event_update_userpage+0xf4/0x110
> [<ffffffff812e4468>] perf_event_overflow+0x88/0xe0
> [<ffffffff810175b8>] __intel_pmu_pebs_event+0x328/0x380
>
> This all stems from get_next_pebs_record_by_bit() potentially
> returning NULL but the NULL is not handled correctly
> by the callers. This is what I'd like to see cleaned up in
> __intel_pmu_pebs_event() to avoid future problems.
>
Got it. Yes, we need another patch to correctly handle the potentially
returning NULL. Thanks for pointing it out.
Thanks,
Kan
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:28 PM Liang, Kan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/16/2021 3:22 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Hi Peter and Kan,
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 5:22 AM Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 02:53:00PM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >>> On 3/3/2021 1:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 05:42:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> +++ 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.
> >>
> >> Right, but then HW was supposed to write sane values and it doesn't do
> >> that either ;-)
> >>
> >>> It's just a personal preference. I don't see any issue here. We may try it.
> >>
> >> So I mostly agree with you, but I think it's a shame to unsupport such
> >> chips, HSW is still a plenty useable chip today.
> >
> > I got a similar issue on ivybridge machines which caused kernel crash.
> > My case it's related to the branch stack with PEBS events but I think
> > it's the same issue. And I can confirm that the above approach of
> > updating p->status fixed the problem.
> >
> > I've talked to Stephane about this, and he wants to make it more
> > robust when we see stale (or invalid) PEBS records. I'll send the
> > patch soon.
> >
>
> Hi Namhyung,
>
> In case you didn't see it, I've already submitted a patch to fix the
> issue last Friday.
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/[email protected]/
> But if you have a more robust proposal, please feel free to submit it.
>
> BTW: The patch set from last Friday also fixed another bug found by the
> perf_fuzzer test. You may be interested.
Right, I missed it. It'd be nice if you could CC me for perf patches later.
Thanks,
Namhyung