linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units

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:	Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:13:46 +0200
From:	stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
	Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
	Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
	Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf_events: support for uncore a.k.a. nest units

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 15:12 -0700, Corey Ashford wrote:
>>
>> > Initially I'd not allow per-pmu-per-task contexts
>> > because then things like perf_event_task_sched_out() would get rather
>> > complex.
>>
>> Definitely.  I don't think it makes sense to have per-task context on
>> nest/uncore PMUs.  At least we haven't found any justification for it.
>
> For uncore no, but there is also the hw-breakpoint stuff that is being
> presented as a pmu, for those it would make sense to have a separate
> per-task context.
>
> But doing multiple per-task contexts is something for a next step
> indeed.
>
>> > For RR we can move away from perf_event_task_tick and let the pmu
>> > install a (hr)timer for this on their own.
>>
>> This is necessary I think, because of the access time for some of the PMU's.  I
>> wonder though if it should, perhaps optionally, be off-loaded to a high-priority
>> task to do the switching so that access latency to the PMU can be controlled.
>>
>> As I mentioned when we met, some of the Wire-Speed processor nest PMU control
>> registers are accessed via SCOM, which is an internal, 200 MHz serial bus.  We
>> are being quoted ~525 SCOM bus ticks to do a PMU control register access, which
>> comes out to about 2.5 microseconds.  If you figure 5 accesses to rotate the
>> events on a PMU, that's a minimum of 12.5 microseconds.
>
> Yeah, you mentioned that.. for those things we need some changes anyway,
> since currently we install per-cpu counters using IPIs and expect the
> pmu::enable() method to be synchronous (it has a return value). It would
> be totally unacceptable to do 2.5ms pokes with IRQs disabled.
>
> The RR thing would be the easiest to solve, just let the timer wake up a
> thread instead of doing the work itself, that's fully isolated to how
> the pmu chooses to implement that. The above mentioned issue however
> would be much more challenging to fix nicely.
>
>
Also some of perf_enable()/perf_disable() would have to be per PMU and
not global like they are today.
--
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/