linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] perfcounters: provide a way to read the current value of interrupting counters

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: <1237275169.5189.58.camel@laptop>
Date:	Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:32:49 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 1/2] perfcounters: provide a way to read the
 current value of interrupting counters

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:42 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Impact: new feature
> 
> At present, if the user specifies hw_event->record_type ==
> PERF_RECORD_IRQ or PERF_RECORD_GROUP when creating a counter, reads from
> the counter will return records from the interrupt event queue for the
> counter.  This means that there is no way to find out the current value
> of the counter.  Also, using the record_type is slightly problematic in
> that what actually determines whether the counter generates interrupts
> is whether hw_event->irq_period is non-zero or not.

I've never found that to be a problem, I've always read PERF_RECORD_IRQ
as PERF_RECORD_SINGLE or somesuch in that it will give a single counter
output, as opposed to PERF_RECORD_GROUP which will give a tuple.

> This provides a way for users to get a second fd for an interrupting
> counter, which has a different set of file operations, set up so that
> reads on the second (or "clone") fd return the counter value rather than
> reading the interrupt event queue.  The way to get the clone fd is like
> this:
> 
> 	clone_fd = sys_perf_counter_open(NULL, 0, 0, counter_fd, 0);

I'm not sure I understand why. It seems to me you're either interested
in sample data, that is {tid,ip,counter} like things, or you want raw
count values.

These two cases seem clearly distinct and provided for. Why are you
mixing them?

> This will enable us to use a wider range of values in record_type in
> future, allowing the user to specify what information they want recorded
> on an interrupt.

This seems unrelated, what will stop us now from adding record_type
values? PERF_RECORD_CALLCHAIN is one in particular I'd like to add soon.

> Internally, we now potentially have multiple struct files pointing to
> the one struct counter, which could lead to lifetime issues.  We avoid
> any such issues by having the clone files keep a reference to the
> original file.  The reference is dropped when the clone file is closed.
> Thus the original file can never be released while there is any clone
> file still open.

This is a bit bothersome, as we then have no unique identifier anymore.

Currently the group record type writes things like {hw_event->type,
counter} which is ambiguous since we really have a 65bit id space. So I
was thinking of making that {fd, counter} to at least have a unique
identifier in there.



--
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/