linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:01:06 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, eranian@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:54 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> 
> Ok, so I made some progress yesterday on all of this.
> 
> The key elements are:
>   -  pmu->enable() is always called from generic with PMU disabled
>   -  pmu->disable() is called with PMU possibly enabled
>   - hw_perf_group_sched_in() is always called with PMU disabled
> 
> I got the n_added logic working now on X86.
> 
> I noticed the difference in pmu->enabled() between Power and X86.
> On PPC, you disable the whole PMU. On X86, that's not the case.
> 
> Now, I do the scheduling in hw_perf_enable(). Just like on PPC, I also
> move events around if their register assignment has changed. It is not
> quite working yet. I must have something wrong with the read and rewrite
> code.
> 
> I will experiment with pmu->enable(). Given the key elements above, I think
> Paul is right, all scheduling can be deferred until hw_perf_enable().
> 
> But there is a catch. I noticed that hw_perf_enable() is void. In
> other words, it
> means that if scheduling fails, you won't notice. This is not a problem on PPC
> but will be on AMD64. That's because the scheduling depends on what goes on
> on the other cores on the socket. In other words, things can change between
> pmu->enable()/hw_perf_group_sched_in() and hw_perf_enable(). Unless we lock
> something down in between. 

You have to lock stuff, you can't fail hw_perf_enable() because at that
point we've lost all track of what failed.



--
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/