linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_trace: Add max execution time mesurementfor per worklet

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: <B0DFF0EA5CE64F6683BEDD6641CA20C2@zhaoleiwin>
Date:	Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:10:26 +0800
From:	"Zhaolei" <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>
To:	"Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>, "Tom Zanussi" <tzanussi@...il.com>,
	"KOSAKI Motohiro" <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	"Oleg Nesterov" <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] workqueue_trace: Add max execution time mesurementfor per worklet

* From: "Frederic Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:06:16AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> What is the meaning of M_EXECus?  Mean execution time in microseconds,
>> I assume?  I wonder if that is sufficiently high resolution nowadays.
> 
> 
> It's the maximum execution time encountered for a given worklet.
> I also have a small patch, about ready, to get the average.
> 
> 
>> You'll note that all the functions are reported as "foo+0x0/0xN". 
>> There is a way of suppressing the unneeded and unuseful "+0x0/0xN",
>> but I forget what it is and the comments over lib/vsprintf.c:pointer()
>> didn't help.  I think it's %pS.
> 
> 
> I don't know any way to perform this.
> %pF and %pS will act pretty much the same, except:
> 
> Extract from lib/vsprintf.c:
> 
> * Note: The difference between 'S' and 'F' is that on ia64 and ppc64
> * function pointers are really function descriptors, which contain a
> * pointer to the real address.
> 
> But the output formatting is the same: address, offset, size, modname.
> 
> I found it a bit annoying, so I proposed the following patch recently:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/15/310
> 
> And someone came with a better idea, IMO:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/17/105
> 
> 
>> 
>> The patchset adds no user documentation for the feature and should not
>> (IMO) be merged in such a state.  Please.
>>
> 
> 
> Ok, I will try something today about the documentation.
> 
> Thanks!
Hello,

To Frederic
Thanks for reply this mail for me.
Your saying is better than me.

To Andrew:
Sorry for replay late, I was rest yesterday.
Frederic's answer is all I wish to say.

Thanks
Zhaolei


> 
> 
>