[PATCH kernel] powerpc/perf: Stop crashing with generic_compat_pmu
Alexey Kardashevskiy
aik at ozlabs.ru
Tue Feb 16 12:06:31 AEDT 2021
On 03/12/2020 16:27, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
> On 12/2/20 8:31 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> Hi Maddy,
>>
>> I just noticed that I still have "powerpc/perf: Add checks for
>> reserved values" in my pile (pushed here
>> https://github.com/aik/linux/commit/61e1bc3f2e19d450e2e2d39174d422160b21957b
>> ), do we still need it? The lockups I saw were fixed by
>> https://github.com/aik/linux/commit/17899eaf88d689 but it is hardly a
>> replacement. Thanks,
>
> sorry missed this. Will look at this again. Since we will need
> generation specific checks for the reserve field.
So any luck with this? Cheers,
>
> Maddy
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/06/2020 02:34, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/2/20 8:26 AM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>> The bhrb_filter_map ("The Branch History Rolling Buffer")
>>>> callback is
>>>> only defined in raw CPUs' power_pmu structs. The "architected" CPUs use
>>>> generic_compat_pmu which does not have this callback and crashed occur.
>>>>
>>>> This add a NULL pointer check for bhrb_filter_map() which behaves as if
>>>> the callback returned an error.
>>>>
>>>> This does not add the same check for config_bhrb() as the only caller
>>>> checks for cpuhw->bhrb_users which remains zero if bhrb_filter_map==0.
>>>
>>> Changes looks fine.
>>> Reviewed-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy at linux.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> The commit be80e758d0c2e ('powerpc/perf: Add generic compat mode pmu
>>> driver')
>>> which introduced generic_compat_pmu was merged in v5.2. So we need to
>>> CC stable starting from 5.2 :( . My bad, sorry.
>>>
>>> Maddy
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik at ozlabs.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
>>>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
>>>> b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
>>>> index 3dcfecf858f3..36870569bf9c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/perf/core-book3s.c
>>>> @@ -1515,9 +1515,16 @@ static int power_pmu_add(struct perf_event
>>>> *event, int ef_flags)
>>>> ret = 0;
>>>> out:
>>>> if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
>>>> - power_pmu_bhrb_enable(event);
>>>> - cpuhw->bhrb_filter = ppmu->bhrb_filter_map(
>>>> - event->attr.branch_sample_type);
>>>> + u64 bhrb_filter = -1;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ppmu->bhrb_filter_map)
>>>> + bhrb_filter = ppmu->bhrb_filter_map(
>>>> + event->attr.branch_sample_type);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (bhrb_filter != -1) {
>>>> + cpuhw->bhrb_filter = bhrb_filter;
>>>> + power_pmu_bhrb_enable(event); /* Does bhrb_users++ */
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> perf_pmu_enable(event->pmu);
>>>> @@ -1839,7 +1846,6 @@ static int power_pmu_event_init(struct
>>>> perf_event *event)
>>>> int n;
>>>> int err;
>>>> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuhw;
>>>> - u64 bhrb_filter;
>>>>
>>>> if (!ppmu)
>>>> return -ENOENT;
>>>> @@ -1945,7 +1951,10 @@ static int power_pmu_event_init(struct
>>>> perf_event *event)
>>>> err = power_check_constraints(cpuhw, events, cflags, n + 1);
>>>>
>>>> if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
>>>> - bhrb_filter = ppmu->bhrb_filter_map(
>>>> + u64 bhrb_filter = -1;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (ppmu->bhrb_filter_map)
>>>> + bhrb_filter = ppmu->bhrb_filter_map(
>>>> event->attr.branch_sample_type);
>>>>
>>>> if (bhrb_filter == -1) {
>>>
>>
--
Alexey
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list