linux-kernel - Re: [patch 0/2] NOHZ vs. profile/oprofile v2

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:	Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:40:30 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Rob van der Heij <rvdheij@...il.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] NOHZ vs. profile/oprofile v2


* Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:37 +0200
> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:05:53 +0200
> > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:41:10 +0200
> > > > > Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Hm, this is rather ugly. Why not use hrtimers like 'perf' does when 
> > > > > > it fallback-samples based on the timer tick?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That method has three advantages:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  - no weird hookery needed
> > > > > >  - resolution can go far beyond HZ
> > > > > >  - it is evidently dynticks-safe
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hmm, if we replace the HZ based oprofile tick with an hrtimer we 
> > > > > should add an interface to configure the sample interval as well, 
> > > > > no? Otherwise we just replace one timer event (HZ) with another 
> > > > > (hrtimer).
> > > > 
> > > > Even if the hrtimer is set with a 1/HZ period it's a better 
> > > > solution, as it's dynticks safe without invasive changes.
> > > 
> > > Ok, but the patch will be quite big. All the profile_tick() calls 
> > > from the architecture files will have to be removed. [...]
> > 
> > Hey, that's a bonus :)
> 
> It would remove some oddball code :-)
>  
> > > [...] And if we really want to keep things separate there will be 
> > > two sets of per-cpu hrtimer, one for the old style profiler and 
> > > one for oprofile. Any preference for the user space interface to 
> > > set the sample rate? A sysctl?
> > 
> > I dont think we want to keep things separate. Regarding old-style 
> > profiler, does anyone still use it? There's now a superior in-tree 
> > replacement for it, so we could phase it out.
> 
> Well, for my part I won't miss it. But to be able to remove the 
> profile_tick() calls from the architectures I either have to rip 
> out the old profiler now, or adapt it to use hrtimer as well.

Do we _have to_ touch it so widely right now? We could start with a 
deprecation warning in this cycle. Once it's deprecated we can 
remove all those calls.

	Ingo
--
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/