linux-kernel - Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3

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]

Message-ID: <7c86c4470812150458o47292790gf143fb035bf1e06d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:58:18 +0100
From:	"stephane eranian" <eranian@...glemail.com>
To:	"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Peter Zijlstra" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"Vince Weaver" <vince@...ter.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	"Robert Richter" <robert.richter@....com>,
	"Arjan van de Veen" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes:
>
>> * stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Given the level of abstractions you are using for the API, and given
>> > your argument that the kernel can do the HW resource scheduling better
>> > than anybody else.
>> >
>> > What happens in the following test case:
>> >
>> >    - 2-way system (cpu0, cpu1)
>> >
>> >    - on cpu0, two processes P1, P2, each self-monitoring and counting event E1.
>> >      Event E1 can only be measured on counter C1.
>> >
>> >    - on cpu1, there is a cpu-wide session, monitoring event E1, thus using C1
>> >
>> >    - the scheduler decides to migrate P1 onto CPU1. You now have a
>> >      conflict on C1.
>> >
>> > How is this managed?
>>
>> If there's a single unit of sharable resource [such as an event counter,
>> or a physical CPU], then there's just three main possibilities: either
>> user 1 gets it all, or user 2 gets it all, or they share it.
>>
>> We've implemented the essence of these variants, with sharing the resource
>> being the sane default, and with the sysadmin also having a configuration
>> vector to reserve the resource to himself permanently. (There could be
>> more variations of this.)
>>
>> What is your point?
>>
Could you explain what you mean by sharing here?

Are you talking about time multiplexing the counter?
--
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/