linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf tests: Test converting perf time to TSC

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, 3 Oct 2013 13:02:24 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf tests: Test converting perf time to TSC

On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 01:13:45PM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> > Anyway; looking at this, why does time_zero have these different checks
> > from the other time bits?
> > 
> > @@ -1897,6 +1898,11 @@ void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
> >         userpg->time_mult = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns);
> >         userpg->time_shift = CYC2NS_SCALE_FACTOR;
> >         userpg->time_offset = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset) - now;
> > +
> > +       if (sched_clock_stable && !check_tsc_disabled()) {
> > +               userpg->cap_usr_time_zero = 1;
> > +               userpg->time_zero = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset);
> > +       }
> >  }
> > 
> > That doesn't make any kind of sense.. why is cyc2ns_offset differently
> > tested from cyc2ns itself?
> 
> I am afraid I don't understand the scaling calculations
> so I don't know if they make any sense.
> 
> cap_usr_time_zero (now cap_user_time_zero) means you can convert
> perf time to / from TSC.  That only works if TSC is not disabled
> and sched_clock is stable (and you have constant, non-stop TSC)
> 
> As far as I can tell, assuming the hardware is not broken,
> sched_clock will be stable unless something (BIOS) or someone
> (meddling user) has changed TSC manually.

Well all the scaling mess only applies to TSC.. furthermore note how
time_offset even uses cyc2ns_offset.

So I don't see any point in cap_user_time and cap_user_time_zero having
different conditions.

Also, I don't think that a cpu without cap_tsc will ever run perf code
so I don't see the point of testing tsc_disabled; if someone is mad
enough to boot with that he can bloody well keep the pieces.

Arguably the CONSTANT && NONSTOP test was to test the same thing as
sched_clock_stable, but I suppose we can use that.

Which reminds me; I should go and fix the transition for
sched_clock_stable: 1->0.

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index 897783b3302a..9db2b361a63d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -1888,21 +1888,16 @@ void arch_perf_update_userpage(struct perf_event_mmap_page *userpg, u64 now)
 	userpg->cap_user_rdpmc = x86_pmu.attr_rdpmc;
 	userpg->pmc_width = x86_pmu.cntval_bits;
 
-	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC))
-		return;
-
-	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC))
-		return;
+	if (!sched_clock_stable)
+		return
 
 	userpg->cap_user_time = 1;
 	userpg->time_mult = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns);
 	userpg->time_shift = CYC2NS_SCALE_FACTOR;
 	userpg->time_offset = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset) - now;
 
-	if (sched_clock_stable && !check_tsc_disabled()) {
-		userpg->cap_user_time_zero = 1;
-		userpg->time_zero = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset);
-	}
+	userpg->cap_user_time_zero = 1;
+	userpg->time_zero = this_cpu_read(cyc2ns_offset);
 }
 
 /*
--
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/