Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1588432
| From | Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@huawei.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent check |
| Date | 2017-02-27 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tfhFM-675-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <tdUBz-5jM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tekcG-6wz-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <teFKa-4VJ-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <teHiW-5T6-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2017/2/25 17:51, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 04:10:37PM +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote: > >> Recently I was using perf_fuzzer for testing in Hisilicon >> D03/D05(arm64, linux-4.10-rc1). >> >> As we know perf_fuzzer will write a random value to procfs interface >> of perf event(like sysctl_perf_cpu_time_max_percent). The value may be >> 0 or 100, and I get logs like below: >> >> ---------------------------------- >> [ 4046.358811] perf: Dynamic interrupt throttling disabled, can hang your system! >> ---------------------------------- >> >> Most of the time, there is no problem, and the perf_fuzzer test can >> end without any warings or errors. But there is a small probability >> that triggers the RCU and watchdog (The log is attached at the end). >> It hungs after local_irq_enable() in __do_softirq. >> >> I think this is due to the dynamic interrupt throttling disabled and >> too many hardware interruptions come. So I limit the >> sysctl_perf_cpu_time_max_percent can only be set 1 to 99 in the kernel >> codes. I test more than 20 times in D03, and there are no errors or >> warnings in the test. >> >> So I want to ask: >> >> 1)Is it a problem or not? (It has already given you a warning.) >> >> 2)If it is, where we will fix it more appropriate, perf_fuzzer(not set >> 0 or 100) or kernel(limit 1 to 99), or maybe it is the bug of >> hardware(too many hardware interruptions)? > > I think the best would be if the fuzzer would not set 0,100, those are > clearly 'unsafe' settings and you pretty much get to keep the pieces. > > I would like to preserve these settings for people that 'know' what > they're doing and are willing to take the risk, but clearly, when you > take the guard-rails off, things can come apart. > OK. It makes sense, I agree. Thank you for your answer. Xiaojun. > . >
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] perf/core: Fix to check perf_cpu_time_max_percent Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@huawei.com> - 2017-02-23 07:00 +0100
[tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent check tip-bot for Tan Xiaojun <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2017-02-24 10:20 +0100
Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent check Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@huawei.com> - 2017-02-25 09:20 +0100
Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent check Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-02-25 11:00 +0100
Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/core: Fix the perf_cpu_time_max_percent check Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@huawei.com> - 2017-02-27 01:50 +0100
csiph-web