On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Vince Weaver <vincent.wea...@maine.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2017, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:44:02AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>> static void x86_pmu_event_mapped(struct perf_event *event)
>> >>> {
>> >>> if (!(event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_ALLOWED))
>> >>> return;
>> >>>
>> >>> if (atomic_inc_return(¤t->mm->context.perf_rdpmc_allowed) == 1)
>> >>>
>> >>> <-- thread 1 stalls here
>> >>>
>> >>> on_each_cpu_mask(mm_cpumask(current->mm), refresh_pce, NULL, 1);
>> >>> }
>> >>>
>> >>> Suppose you start with perf_rdpmc_allowed == 0. Thread 1 runs
>> >>> x86_pmu_event_mapped and gets preempted (or just runs slowly) where I
>> >>> marked. Then thread 2 runs the whole function, does *not* update CR4,
>> >>> returns to userspace, and GPFs.
>> >>>
>> >>> The big hammer solution is to stick a per-mm mutex around it. Let me
>> >>> ponder whether a smaller hammer is available.
>> >>
>> >> Reminds me a bit of what we ended up with in
>> >> kernel/jump_label.c:static_key_slow_inc().
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > One thing I don't get: isn't mmap_sem held for write the whole time?
>>
>> mmap_sem is indeed held, so my theory is wrong. I can reproduce it,
>> but I don't see the bug yet...
>
> It could still be a PAPI bug, as I'm having absolutely no luck trying to
> come up with a plain perf_event reproducer.
>
> Let me dig through the PAPI code again and make sure I'm not missing
> something.
Can you give this a try:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/fixes&id=9edb8154863ba1a7f6f1f15ffe6aecf3cf32bf21
(The link doesn't work yet but it should in a minute or two.)
--Andy
