Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: Don't throttle based on NMI watchdog events

[Calvin Owens]

On Tuesday 03/31 at 10:22 -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> On Tuesday 03/31 at 08:25 -0700, Calvin Owens wrote:
> > @@ -663,6 +666,17 @@ void perf_sample_event_took(u64 sample_len_ns)
> >  	if (avg_len <= max_len)
> >  		return;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Very infrequent events like the perf counter hard watchdog
> > +	 * can trigger spurious throttling: skip throttling if the prior
> > +	 * NMI got here more than one second before this NMI began.
> > +	 */
> > +	now = local_clock();
> > +	delta = now - __this_cpu_read(last_throttle_clock);
> > +	__this_cpu_write(last_throttle_clock, now);
> > +	if (delta - sample_len_ns > NSEC_PER_SEC)
> > +		return;
> 
> Bah, Sashiko caught something obvious I missed:
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/cover.1774969692.git.calvin%40wbinvd.org
> 
> >> When the outer handler completes, its sample_len_ns (total execution
> >> time) will be strictly greater than delta (time since the inner
> >> handler finished).  This guarantees delta < sample_len_ns, causing the
> >> subtraction to underflow to a massive positive value.
> >>
> >> The condition > NSEC_PER_SEC will then evaluate to true, and the outer
> >> handler will erroneously skip the perf throttling logic. Should this
> >> check be rewritten to avoid subtraction, perhaps by using if (delta >
> >> sample_len_ns + NSEC_PER_SEC)?
> 
> The solution it proposed makes sense to me.

I replied too quickly: I think Sashiko is actually wrong.

It is assuming that sample_len_ns includes the latency of
perf_sample_event_took(), but it does not.

Nesting in the middle of the RMW of the percpu value strictly makes
last_throttle_clock appear to have happened *sooner* to the outer NMI,
so I think that case works.

Thanks, apologies again for all the noise here,
Calvin

> >  	__report_avg = avg_len;
> >  	__report_allowed = max_len;
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.47.3
> >