linux-kernel - Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.87 improved page fault tracing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:42:55 +0900 (JST)
From:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <compudj@...stal.dyndns.org>
Cc:	kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com, ltt-dev@...ts.casi.polymtl.ca,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [ltt-dev] LTTng 0.87 improved page fault tracing

Hi

interesting..

> I just combined the 4 page fault handler events that were in the tracing
> hot path of LTTng into 2 :
> 
> kernel page_fault_entry
> kernel page_fault_exit
> 
> They take as parameter the combination of what was available in the
> trap_entry/exit events and handle_mm_fault entry/exit events. This
> should lessen the performance impact of the tracer when it's active.
> I did the related modifications in LTTV 0.12.8.

Just question.

As far as I know, customer has two different requeremtn of the page fault.
  (1) collect number of all page fault
      -> if it is too large, too many interrupt decrease performance.
  (2) collect number of major page fault
      -> major page fault indicate to increase random access I/O,
         then, some customer want to collect major page fault
         (don't include minor page fault)

Is this patch fill (2) requirement?



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/