On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:38:25PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> It still crashes at the same place with this patch and my reproducible
> test case.
Thank for testing, Vince! At least now we know it is unrelated to
alias events. Will ping you once I get more ideas.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Vince, could you please disable alias events and see if it change
> anything, once you have time? Note once we've aliases disabled the
> counter for cpu cycles get used for NMI watchdog so PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES
> won't be available in "perf" tool
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 11:20:38PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > the machine still crashes after this, but not right away.
>
> yes, exactly, if look into disasm code we will see that 0x158
> offset points to hwc from event. Vince, gimme some time, probably
> the weekend so I would dive into
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 03:01:14PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> I do have a lot of this automated already from tracking down past bugs,
> but it turns out that most of the fuzzer-found bugs aren't deterministic
> so it doesn't always work.
>
> For example this bug, while I can easily repeat
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:37:18PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> Oh, Vince, I suspect such kind of bisection might consume a lot of your
> time :( Maybe we could update perf fuzzer so that it would send events
> to some net-storage first then write
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:37:18PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:25:47AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like there are at least two bugs here, one that's a full
> > > hardlockup with nothing on serial
On Thu, 4 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:25:47AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> >
> > It looks like there are at least two bugs here, one that's a full
> > hardlockup with nothing on serial console. The other is the NULL
> > dereference.
OK, it turns out the
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 09:25:47AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> It looks like there are at least two bugs here, one that's a full
> hardlockup with nothing on serial console. The other is the NULL
> dereference.
>
Seems so. I've spent plenty of time yesterday trying to figure out how
we
On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:19:44PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >
> > You know, seems I got what happened -- p4_general_events do
> > not cover all general events, they stop at PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES,
> > while more 3 general event left. This is
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:19:44PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>
> You know, seems I got what happened -- p4_general_events do
> not cover all general events, they stop at PERF_COUNT_HW_BUS_CYCLES,
> while more 3 general event left. This is 'cause I've not been following
> pmu evolution in
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:59:32AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> so moving this to its own thread.
>
> There was a two-part question asked.
> 1. Can the perf-fuzzer crash a Pentium 4 system
> 2. Does anyone care anymore?
>
> The answer to #1 turns out to be "yes"
> I'm not sure
On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:59:32AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> so moving this to its own thread.
>
> There was a two-part question asked.
> 1. Can the perf-fuzzer crash a Pentium 4 system
> 2. Does anyone care anymore?
>
> The answer to #1 turns out to be "yes"
> I'm not sure
so moving this to its own thread.
There was a two-part question asked.
1. Can the perf-fuzzer crash a Pentium 4 system
2. Does anyone care anymore?
The answer to #1 turns out to be "yes"
I'm not sure about #2 (but it's telling my p4 test system hadn't been
turned on in over 3
13 matches
Mail list logo
