Re: [PATCH] perf,x86: Fix shared registers mutual exclusion bug

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 04:43:46PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> 
> This patch fixes a problem with the shared registers mutual
> exclusion code and incremental event scheduling by the
> generic perf_event code.
> 
> There was a bug whereby the mutual exclusion on the shared
> registers was not enforced because of incremental scheduling
> abort due to event constraints.
> 
> Example on Nehalem:
> group1= ref-cycles,OFFCORE_RESPONSE_0:PF_RFO
> group2= ref-cycles
> 
> The ref-cycles event can only be measured by 1 counter. Yet, there
> are 2 instances here. The first group can be scheduled and is committed.
> Then, the generic code tries to schedule group2 and this fails (because
> there is no more counter to support the 2nd instance of ref-cycles).
> 
> But in x86_schedule_events() error path, put_event_contraints() is invoked
> on ALL the events and not just the ones that just failed. That causes the
> "lock" on the shared offcore_response MSR to be released. Yet the first group
> is actually scheduled and is exposed to reprogramming of that shared msr by
> the sibling HT thread (when they are shared by HT threads). In other words,
> there is no guarantee on what is measured for the offcore_response event.
> 
> This patch fixes the problem by tagging committed events with the
> PERF_X86_EVENT_COMMITTED tag. In the error path of x86_schedule_events(),
> only the events NOT tagged have their constraint released. The tag
> is eventually removed when the event in descheduled.
> 
> Example was given with offcore_response but also applies to LBR_SELECT
> and LDLAT shared registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>

I'm getting conflicts against other patches -- most notably I think the
contraints stack opt from Andrew Hunter.

I'll try and get Ingo to finally pick up my queued patches so we can
rebase.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/