linux-kernel - Re: performance counter ~0.4% error finding retired instruction count

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:	Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:28:54 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: performance counter ~0.4% error finding retired instruction
	count


* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar writes:
> 
> > I measured 2000, but generally a few thousand cycles per 
> > invocation sounds about right.
> 
> We could actually do a bit better than we do, fairly easily.  We 
> could attach the counters to the child after the fork instead of 
> the parent before the fork, using a couple of pipes for 
> synchronization.  And there's probably a way to get the dynamic 
> linker to resolve the execvp call early in the child so we avoid 
> that overhead.  I think we should be able to get the overhead down 
> to tens of userspace instructions without doing anything 
> unnatural.

Definitely so.

	Ingo
--
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/