linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: add tracepoint for xtime

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: <1253133136.20020.245.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date:	Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:32:16 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ftrace: add tracepoint for xtime

On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 12:58 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:56 PM, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Zhaolei <zhaolei@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> From: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
> >>  /* Structure holding internal timekeeping values. */
> >>  struct timekeeper {
> >>        /* Current clocksource used for timekeeping. */
> >> @@ -338,6 +341,8 @@ int do_settimeofday(struct timespec *tv)
> >>
> >>        update_vsyscall(&xtime, timekeeper.clock);
> >>
> >> +       trace_gtod_update_xtime(&xtime, &wall_to_monotonic);
> >> +
> >
> > So the only thing to watch out on here is that xtime doesn't hold the
> > current time, but the accumulated time. There is some unaccumulated
> > time still kept in the clocksource structure.
> >
> > You probably want (assuming you only need tick granularity time) to
> > use current_kernel_time().
> >
> > As an aside, is there a reason you have to have update callbacks and
> > duplicate the time storage instead of using the existing interfaces?
> > (ie: Is this due to locking or something else?)
> 
> Doh. Sorry, you're actually tracing the timekeeping code. Not using
> this to assist tracing. Got this confused.
> 
> So yea, I think this should be ok, plus or minus determining if you
> really want xtime or xtime_cache.

Well this may be a real concern. It's not about tracing timekeeping
(although it adds that functionality). His second patch (I didn't Cc you
on that one) hooks to these tracepoints to update time accordingly.

What is being done is a way to have a "wall time" value being added to
the ring buffer. But this needs to be very carefully done, because the
all tracers use this, including the function tracer in NMI code. So the
clock source can not take locks or do anything fancy.

What the idea is, is to have a semi clock that is read with some kind of
fast increment, and then at clock ticks, this clock is synced up.

I think that's the idea, anyone correct me if I'm wrong ;-)

-- Steve


--
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/