linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Support task events with Intel CQM

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 10 Oct 2014 16:02:23 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Support task events with Intel CQM

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 01:02:02PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct, at 04:49:57PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > The thing is, with multiplexing you cannot fail at event creation time
> > anyhow. The only time where you can 'fail' is when programming the PMU,
> > when its full its full.
> > 
> > Those that don't fit, get to wait their turn.
> 
> For CQM it's not about "fitting" everything in the PMU but more about
> monitoring the same thing (task, cgroup) with different events, i.e. one
> thing with two RMIDs. We have the RMID recycling algorithm to make
> things fit, but that doesn't help us out here.
> 
> An example scenario that isn't supported by this patch series is
> monitoring a cgroup while simultaneously monitoring a task that's part
> of that cgroup. Whichever event is created second will fail at event
> init time.

That was what I had that conflict thing for, ISTR seeing some parts of
that here.

> And that seemed like a fair approach to me. But the more I think about
> it, the more I begin to agree that maybe we should allow users the
> flexibility to create conflicting events, particularly because there
> appears to be precedent in other parts of perf.

Yeah, although typically its not this hard. CQM is 'interesting' because
its so different.

> Hmm... "rotation" is starting to become my least favourite word.

:-)
--
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/