linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Drop kernel samples even though :u is specified

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:   Fri, 19 May 2017 14:10:56 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Drop kernel samples even though :u is
 specified

On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 08:06:09PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> SNIP
> 
> > I would much rather see this in generic code, somewhere around
> > __perf_event_overflow() I suppose. That would retain proper accounting
> > for the interrupt rate etc..
> > 
> > Also it would work for all architectures. Because I'm thinking more than
> > just x86 will suffer from skid.
> Yes, moving to generic code is better.  Thanks for the suggestion! I will do
> that.
> 
> > If you're really worried, I suppose you can put it behind a PERF_PMU_CAP
> > flag or something.
> I guess what you are suggesting is to add checking like:
> 
> if (is_sampling_event(event)) {
>     if (event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT) {
>         return;
>     }
> }

Ah, I was more thinking of something like PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_SKID or
something that would skip the test and preserve current behaviour.