Date:	Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:33:22 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [ofa-general] Re: [GIT PULL] please pull ummunotify

On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 15:34 -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > So I looked a little deeper into this, and I don't think (even with the
>  > filtering extensions) that perf events are directly applicable to this
>  > problem.  The first issue is that, assuming I'm understanding the
>  > comment in perf_event.c:
>  > 
>  >         /*
>  >          * Raw tracepoint data is a severe data leak, only allow root to
>  >          * have these.
>  >          */
>  > 
>  > currently tracepoints can only be used by privileged processes.  A key
>  > feature of ummunotify is that ordinary unprivileged processes can use it.
>  > 
>  > So would it be acceptable to add something like PERF_TYPE_MMU_NOTIFIER
>  > as a way of letting unprivileged userspace get access to just MMU events
>  > for their own process?  Clearly this touches core infrastructure and is
>  > not as simple as just adding two tracepoints.
>  > 
>  > Then, assuming we have some way to create an "MMU notifier" perf event,
>  > we need a way for userspace to specify which address ranges it would
>  > like events for (I don't think the string filter expression used by
>  > existing trace filtering works, because if userspace is looking at a few
>  > hundred regions, then the size of the filtering expression explodes, and
>  > adding or removing a single range becomes a pain).  So I guess a new
>  > ioctl() to add/remove ranges for MMU_NOTIFIER perf events?
>  > 
>  > I think filtering is needed, because otherwise events for ranges that
>  > are not of interest are just a waste of resources to generate and
>  > process, and make losing good events because of overflow much more
>  > likely.
>  > 
>  > We still have the problem of lost events if the mmap buffer overflows,
>  > but userspace should be able to size the buffer so that such events are
>  > rare I guess.
>  > 
>  > In the end this seems to just take the ummunotify code I have, and make
>  > it be a new type of perf counter instead of a character special device.
>  > I'd actually be OK with that, since having an oddball new char dev
>  > interface is not particularly nice.  But on the other hand just
>  > multiplexing a new type of thing under perf events is not all that much
>  > better.  What do you think?
> 
> Ingo/Peter/<anyone suggesting perf events> -- can you comment on this
> plan of creating PERF_TYPE_MMU_NOTIFIER for perf events to implement
> ummunotify?  To me it looks like a wash -- the main difference is how
> userspace gets the magic ummunotify file descriptor, either by
> open("/dev/ummunotify") or by perf_event_open(...PERF_TYPE_MMU_NOTIFIER...),
> but pretty much everything else stays pretty much the same in terms of
> how much kernel code is involved.  We do reuse the perf events mmap
> buffer code but I think that ends up being more complicated than
> returning events via read().
> 
> Anyway, before I spend the time converting over to the new
> infrastructure and causing the MPI guys to churn their code, I'd like to
> make sure that this is what you guys have in mind.
> 
> (By the way, after thinking about this more, I really do think that
> filtering events by address range is a must-have -- with filtering,
> userspace can map sufficient buffer space to avoid losing events for a
> given number of regions; without filtering, events might get lost just
> because of invalidate events for ranges userspace didn't even care about)

I think something like

PERF_TYPE_SOFTWARE, PERF_COUNT_SW_MUNMAP + $filter

or

PERF_TYPE_TRACEPOINT, //events/vm/munmap/id + $filter

As for the read/poll issue, I think we can do something like
PERF_FORMAT_BLOCK which would make read() block when ->count hasn't
changed, and make poll() work without requiring a mmap().

As to filter, we can do two things, add a simple single range filter to
perf_event_attr, which is something ia64 has hardware support for IIRC,
or we can possibly use this trace filter muck.

Would something like that be sufficient? With such events only
generating a wakeup (poll) when the unmap actually happens, you'd not
even need an mmap() buffer to keep up with that.


--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists