linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf_events, x86: PEBS support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1265208012.24455.592.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:40:12 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...ochip.com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf_events, x86: PEBS support

On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 15:30 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 15:07 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >> The only improvement that PEBS provides is that you get an IP and the
> >> >> machine state at retirement of an instruction that caused the event to
> >> >> increment. Thus, the IP points to the next dynamic instruction. The instruction
> >> >> is not the one that cause the P-th occurence of the event, if you set the
> >> >> period to P. It is at P+N, where N cannot be predicted and varies depending
> >> >> on the event and executed code. This introduces some bias in the samples..
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure I follow, it records the next event after overflow, doesn't
> >> > that make it P+1?
> >> >
> >> That is not what I wrote. I did not say if records at P+1. I said it records
> >> at P+N, where N varies from sample to sample and cannot be predicted.
> >> N is expressed in the unit of the sampling event.
> >
> > OK, so I'm confused.
> >
> > The manual says it arms the PEBS assist on overflow, and the PEBS thing
> > will then record the next event. Which to me reads like P+1.
> >
> you are assuming arming is instantaneous.

Yes I was, ok that stinks.

If only they would reset the counter on overflow instead of on record,
that would solve quite a few issues I imagine.

Then add IP to the actual instruction and you've got yourself a useful
tool :-)

--
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/