linux-kernel - Re: [generalized cache events] Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf tools: Add missing user space support for config1/config2

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:	Mon, 25 Apr 2011 20:39:25 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Dehao Chen <danielcdh@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, arun@...rma-home.net,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, eranian@...il.com,
	Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [generalized cache events] Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf tools: Add
 missing user space support for config1/config2

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Dehao Chen <danielcdh@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> > ... and the resulting low level of noise in the average period length is
>> > what matters. The instruction itself will still be one of the hotspot
>> > instructions, statistically.
>>
>> Not true. This skid will lead to some aggregation and shadow effects on some
>> certain instructions. To make things worse, these effects are deterministic
>> and cannot be removed by either sampling for multiple times or by averaging
>> among instructions within a basic block. As a result, some actual "hot spot"
>> are not sampled at all. You can simply try to collect a basic block level
>> CPI, and you'll get a very misleading profile.
>
> This certainly does not match the results i'm seeing on real applications,
> using "-e instructions:pp" PEBS+LBR profiling. How do you explain that? Also,
> can you demonstrate your claim with a real example?
>

LBR removes the off-by-1 IP problem, it does not remove the shadow effect, i.e.,
that blind spot of N cycles caused by the PEBS arming mechanism.
--
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/