linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/26] oprofile: Performance counter multiplexing

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:	Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:01:13 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	oprofile-list <oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/26] oprofile: Performance counter multiplexing

On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:46 +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 26.02.10 15:51:04, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > That said the biggest problem with oprofile right now that the
> > new buffer it's using is quite a lot less reliable and drops
> > events left and right on any non trivial load. That makes
> > oprofile very unreliable, especially in call graph mode.
> 
> (cc'ing Steve)
> 

Thanks.

> Andi,
> 
> the tests I run with oprofile do not indicate unreliable ring_buffer
> behavior. Maybe my use cases and loads are different. Can you describe
> a setup where this may happen for sure? What is the impact, do you
> have lost samples or inconsistent buffer data? Is the data loss in
> kernel or user space? Also, I am not aware that the ring_buffer is
> unreliable for ftrace or tracepoints, where it is heavily used. I
> really want to find the root cause here.

Yes, the ftrace ring buffer (which I believe oprofile now uses) is
lockless and re-entrant. That means if a interrupt goes off while one
event is being recorded, and that interrupt writes to the same ring
buffer, the ring buffer will be able to record it without dropping the
event.

As long as the readers keep up, no event will ever be dropped. Perhaps
you need to increase the size of the ring buffers?

-- 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/