Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:37:10 -0500 | From | Waiman Long <> | Subject | Re: SIGSEGV when using "perf record -g" with 3.13-rc* kernel |
| |
On 01/10/2014 12:02 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:58:22PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:29:13AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote: >>> Peter, >>> >>> Call Trace: >>> <NMI> [<ffffffff815710af>] dump_stack+0x49/0x62 >>> [<ffffffff8104e3bc>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xc0 >>> [<ffffffff8104e40a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 >>> [<ffffffff8105f1f1>] force_sig_info+0x131/0x140 >>> [<ffffffff81042a4f>] force_sig_info_fault+0x5f/0x70 >>> [<ffffffff8106d8da>] ? search_exception_tables+0x2a/0x50 >>> [<ffffffff81043b3d>] ? fixup_exception+0x1d/0x70 >>> [<ffffffff81042cc9>] no_context+0x159/0x1f0 >>> [<ffffffff81042e8d>] __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x12d/0x230 >>> [<ffffffff81042e8d>] ? __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x12d/0x230 >>> [<ffffffff81042fa3>] bad_area_nosemaphore+0x13/0x20 >>> [<ffffffff81578fc2>] __do_page_fault+0x362/0x480 >>> [<ffffffff81578fc2>] ? __do_page_fault+0x362/0x480 >>> [<ffffffff815791be>] do_page_fault+0xe/0x10 >>> [<ffffffff81575962>] page_fault+0x22/0x30 >>> [<ffffffff815817e4>] ? bad_to_user+0x5e/0x66b >>> [<ffffffff81285316>] copy_from_user_nmi+0x76/0x90 >>> [<ffffffff81017a20>] perf_callchain_user+0xd0/0x360 >>> [<ffffffff8111f64f>] perf_callchain+0x1af/0x1f0 >>> [<ffffffff81117693>] perf_prepare_sample+0x2f3/0x3a0 >>> [<ffffffff8111a2af>] __perf_event_overflow+0x10f/0x220 >>> [<ffffffff8111ab14>] perf_event_overflow+0x14/0x20 >>> [<ffffffff8101f69e>] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x1de/0x3c0 >>> [<ffffffff81008e44>] ? emulate_vsyscall+0x144/0x390 >>> [<ffffffff81576e64>] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x34/0x60 >>> [<ffffffff8157664a>] nmi_handle+0x8a/0x170 >>> [<ffffffff81576848>] default_do_nmi+0x68/0x210 >>> [<ffffffff81576a80>] do_nmi+0x90/0xe0 >>> [<ffffffff81575c67>] end_repeat_nmi+0x1e/0x2e >>> [<ffffffff81008e44>] ? emulate_vsyscall+0x144/0x390 >>> [<ffffffff81008e44>] ? emulate_vsyscall+0x144/0x390 >>> [<ffffffff81008e44>] ? emulate_vsyscall+0x144/0x390 >>> <<EOE>> [<ffffffff81042f7d>] __bad_area_nosemaphore+0x21d/0x230 >>> [<ffffffff81042fa3>] bad_area_nosemaphore+0x13/0x20 >>> [<ffffffff81578fc2>] __do_page_fault+0x362/0x480 >>> [<ffffffff8113cfbc>] ? vm_mmap_pgoff+0xbc/0xe0 >>> [<ffffffff815791be>] do_page_fault+0xe/0x10 >>> [<ffffffff81575962>] page_fault+0x22/0x30 >>> ---[ end trace 037bf09d279751ec ]--- >>> >>> So this is a double page faults. Looking at relevant changes in >>> 3.13 kernel, I spotted the following one patch that modified the >>> perf_callchain_user() function shown up in the stack trace above: >>> >> Hurm, that's an expected double fault, not something we should take the >> process down for. >> >> I'll have to look at how all that works for a bit. > How easily can you reproduce this? Could you test something like the > below, which would allow us to take double faults from NMI context.
The error can be readily reproducible in my current setup.
> --- > arch/x86/mm/fault.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > index 9ff85bb8dd69..18c498d4274d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > @@ -641,7 +641,7 @@ no_context(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long error_code, > > /* Are we prepared to handle this kernel fault? */ > if (fixup_exception(regs)) { > - if (current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&& signal) { > + if (!in_nmi()&& current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error&& signal) { > tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_PF; > tsk->thread.error_code = error_code | PF_USER; > tsk->thread.cr2 = address;
Yes, this change fixed the error that I got. I no longer see SIGSEGV when I run the test.
I did tried to back out your "perf: Fix arch_perf_out_copy_user default" patch, but it didn't fix the problem.
Thank for the quick turnaround!
-Longman
| |