linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_trace: Add max execution time mesurement for per worklet

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:	Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:33:44 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tom Zanussi <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_trace: Add max execution time mesurement
	for per worklet

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> What is the meaning of M_EXECus?  Mean execution time in microseconds,
> I assume?  I wonder if that is sufficiently high resolution nowadays.

It's the maximum execution time encountered for a given worklet.
I also have a small patch, about ready, to get the average.

> You'll note that all the functions are reported as "foo+0x0/0xN". 
> There is a way of suppressing the unneeded and unuseful "+0x0/0xN",
> but I forget what it is and the comments over lib/vsprintf.c:pointer()
> didn't help.  I think it's %pS.

I don't know any way to perform this.
%pF and %pS will act pretty much the same, except:

Extract from lib/vsprintf.c:

 * Note: The difference between 'S' and 'F' is that on ia64 and ppc64
 * function pointers are really function descriptors, which contain a
 * pointer to the real address.

But the output formatting is the same: address, offset, size, modname.

I found it a bit annoying, so I proposed the following patch recently:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/15/310

And someone came with a better idea, IMO:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/17/105

> 
> The patchset adds no user documentation for the feature and should not
> (IMO) be merged in such a state.  Please.
>

Ok, I will try something today about the documentation.

Thanks!

--
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/