linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)

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, 18 Jan 2010 21:01:06 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 18:29 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 06:13:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 17:51 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > 
> > > Right hw_perf_enable/disable have no action on breakpoint events.
> > > These were somehow considered as software events until now.
> > > 
> > > That raises the question: why perf_disable() only takes care
> > > of hardware events? Very few software events can trigger
> > > between perf_disable() and perf_enable() sections though.
> > > 
> > > May be I should handle breakpoints there.
> > 
> > OK, so maybe I'm not understanding the breakpoint stuff correctly, why
> > is it modeled as a software pmu? It has resource constraints like a
> > hardware pmu.
> 
> 
> It doesn't use the software pmu, it uses its own. But what kind
> of properties can it share with other hardware events?
> 
> It has constraints that only need to be checked when we register
> the event. It has also constraint on enable time but nothing
> tricky that requires an overwritten group scheduling.

the only group scheduling bit is hw_perf_group_sched_in(), and I guess
you can get away without hw_perf_disable() because it doesn't generate
nmis, although I'd have to audit the code to verify a properly placed
breakpoint won't trip things up, since the core code basically assumes
counters won't trigger within perf_disable/enable sections.



--
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/