linux-kernel - RE: [RFC patch 15/15] LTTng timestamp x86

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

Message-ID: <57C9024A16AD2D4C97DC78E552063EA35334594F@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:58:31 -0700
From:	"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC patch 15/15] LTTng timestamp x86

> Hrm, on such systems
> - *large* amount of cpus
> - no synchronized TSCs
>
> What would be the best approach to order events ?

There isn't a perfect solution for this.  My feeling is
that your best hope is with per-cpu buffers logged with
the local TSC ... together with some fancy heuristics to
post-process the logs to come up with the best approximation
to the actual ordering.

If you have a tight upper bound estimate for the
errors in converting from "per-cpu" TSC values to "global
system time" then the post processing tool will be able
to identify events for which the order is uncertain.

> Do you think we should consider using HPET, event though it's
> painfully slow ? Would it be faster than cache-line bouncing
> on such large boxes ? With a frequency around 10MHz, that
> would give a 100ns precision, which should be enough
> to order events.

This sounds like a poor choice.  Makes all traces very
slow.  100ns precision isn't all that good ... we can
probably do almost as well estimating the delta between
TSC on different cpus.

-Tony
--
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/