| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20100313001508.681890784@kvm.kroah.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:12:18 -0800
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc: stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: [patch 040/123] perf: Reimplement frequency driven sampling
2.6.33-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
-----------------
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
commit abd50713944c8ea9e0af5b7bffa0aacae21cc91a upstream.
There was a bug in the old period code that caused intel_pmu_enable_all()
or native_write_msr_safe() to show up quite high in the profiles.
In staring at that code it made my head hurt, so I rewrote it in a
hopefully simpler fashion. Its now fully symetric between tick and
overflow driven adjustments and uses less data to boot.
The only complication is that it basically wants to do a u128 division.
The code approximates that in a rather simple truncate until it fits
fashion, taking care to balance the terms while truncating.
This version does not generate that sampling artefact.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
---
include/linux/perf_event.h | 5 -
kernel/perf_event.c | 132 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
2 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
--- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
+++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
@@ -496,9 +496,8 @@ struct hw_perf_event {
atomic64_t period_left;
u64 interrupts;
- u64 freq_count;
- u64 freq_interrupts;
- u64 freq_stamp;
+ u64 freq_time_stamp;
+ u64 freq_count_stamp;
#endif
};
--- a/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -1350,14 +1350,83 @@ static void perf_event_cpu_sched_in(stru
static void perf_log_throttle(struct perf_event *event, int enable);
-static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 events)
+static u64 perf_calculate_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
+{
+ u64 frequency = event->attr.sample_freq;
+ u64 sec = NSEC_PER_SEC;
+ u64 divisor, dividend;
+
+ int count_fls, nsec_fls, frequency_fls, sec_fls;
+
+ count_fls = fls64(count);
+ nsec_fls = fls64(nsec);
+ frequency_fls = fls64(frequency);
+ sec_fls = 30;
+
+ /*
+ * We got @count in @nsec, with a target of sample_freq HZ
+ * the target period becomes:
+ *
+ * @count * 10^9
+ * period = -------------------
+ * @nsec * sample_freq
+ *
+ */
+
+ /*
+ * Reduce accuracy by one bit such that @a and @b converge
+ * to a similar magnitude.
+ */
+#define REDUCE_FLS(a, b) \
+do { \
+ if (a##_fls > b##_fls) { \
+ a >>= 1; \
+ a##_fls--; \
+ } else { \
+ b >>= 1; \
+ b##_fls--; \
+ } \
+} while (0)
+
+ /*
+ * Reduce accuracy until either term fits in a u64, then proceed with
+ * the other, so that finally we can do a u64/u64 division.
+ */
+ while (count_fls + sec_fls > 64 && nsec_fls + frequency_fls > 64) {
+ REDUCE_FLS(nsec, frequency);
+ REDUCE_FLS(sec, count);
+ }
+
+ if (count_fls + sec_fls > 64) {
+ divisor = nsec * frequency;
+
+ while (count_fls + sec_fls > 64) {
+ REDUCE_FLS(count, sec);
+ divisor >>= 1;
+ }
+
+ dividend = count * sec;
+ } else {
+ dividend = count * sec;
+
+ while (nsec_fls + frequency_fls > 64) {
+ REDUCE_FLS(nsec, frequency);
+ dividend >>= 1;
+ }
+
+ divisor = nsec * frequency;
+ }
+
+ return div64_u64(dividend, divisor);
+}
+
+static void perf_adjust_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 nsec, u64 count)
{
struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
u64 period, sample_period;
s64 delta;
- events *= hwc->sample_period;
- period = div64_u64(events, event->attr.sample_freq);
+ period = perf_calculate_period(event, nsec, count);
delta = (s64)(period - hwc->sample_period);
delta = (delta + 7) / 8; /* low pass filter */
@@ -1368,13 +1437,22 @@ static void perf_adjust_period(struct pe
sample_period = 1;
hwc->sample_period = sample_period;
+
+ if (atomic64_read(&hwc->period_left) > 8*sample_period) {
+ perf_disable();
+ event->pmu->disable(event);
+ atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, 0);
+ event->pmu->enable(event);
+ perf_enable();
+ }
}
static void perf_ctx_adjust_freq(struct perf_event_context *ctx)
{
struct perf_event *event;
struct hw_perf_event *hwc;
- u64 interrupts, freq;
+ u64 interrupts, now;
+ s64 delta;
raw_spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
list_for_each_entry_rcu(event, &ctx->event_list, event_entry) {
@@ -1395,44 +1473,18 @@ static void perf_ctx_adjust_freq(struct
if (interrupts == MAX_INTERRUPTS) {
perf_log_throttle(event, 1);
event->pmu->unthrottle(event);
- interrupts = 2*sysctl_perf_event_sample_rate/HZ;
}
if (!event->attr.freq || !event->attr.sample_freq)
continue;
- /*
- * if the specified freq < HZ then we need to skip ticks
- */
- if (event->attr.sample_freq < HZ) {
- freq = event->attr.sample_freq;
-
- hwc->freq_count += freq;
- hwc->freq_interrupts += interrupts;
-
- if (hwc->freq_count < HZ)
- continue;
-
- interrupts = hwc->freq_interrupts;
- hwc->freq_interrupts = 0;
- hwc->freq_count -= HZ;
- } else
- freq = HZ;
+ event->pmu->read(event);
+ now = atomic64_read(&event->count);
+ delta = now - hwc->freq_count_stamp;
+ hwc->freq_count_stamp = now;
- perf_adjust_period(event, freq * interrupts);
-
- /*
- * In order to avoid being stalled by an (accidental) huge
- * sample period, force reset the sample period if we didn't
- * get any events in this freq period.
- */
- if (!interrupts) {
- perf_disable();
- event->pmu->disable(event);
- atomic64_set(&hwc->period_left, 0);
- event->pmu->enable(event);
- perf_enable();
- }
+ if (delta > 0)
+ perf_adjust_period(event, TICK_NSEC, delta);
}
raw_spin_unlock(&ctx->lock);
}
@@ -3688,12 +3740,12 @@ static int __perf_event_overflow(struct
if (event->attr.freq) {
u64 now = perf_clock();
- s64 delta = now - hwc->freq_stamp;
+ s64 delta = now - hwc->freq_time_stamp;
- hwc->freq_stamp = now;
+ hwc->freq_time_stamp = now;
- if (delta > 0 && delta < TICK_NSEC)
- perf_adjust_period(event, NSEC_PER_SEC / (int)delta);
+ if (delta > 0 && delta < 2*TICK_NSEC)
+ perf_adjust_period(event, delta, hwc->last_period);
}
/*
--
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