linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] perf: core, add group scheduling transactional APIs

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:	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:31:55 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"eranian@...il.com" <eranian@...il.com>,
	"Gary.Mohr@...l.com" <Gary.Mohr@...l.com>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] perf: core, add group scheduling
	transactional APIs

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 03:51:02PM +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> Add group scheduling transactional APIs to struct pmu.
> These APIs will be implemented in arch code, based on Peter's idea as
> below.
> 
> > the idea behind hw_perf_group_sched_in() is to not perform
> > schedulability tests on each event in the group, but to add the group
> as
> > a whole and then perform one test.
> >
> > Of course, when that test fails, you'll have to roll-back the whole
> > group again.
> >
> > So start_txn (or a better name) would simply toggle a flag in the pmu
> > implementation that will make pmu::enable() not perform the
> > schedulablilty test.
> >
> > Then commit_txn() will perform the schedulability test (so note the
> > method has to have a !void return value, my mistake in the earlier
> > email).
> >
> > This will allow us to use the regular
> > kernel/perf_event.c::group_sched_in() and all the rollback code.
> > Currently each hw_perf_group_sched_in() implementation duplicates all
> > the rolllback code (with various bugs).
> 
> 
> Reviewed-by: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/perf_event.h |    8 +++++---
>  kernel/perf_event.c        |   29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>  2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index ace31fb..b16cfba 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -532,6 +532,8 @@ struct hw_perf_event {
>  
>  struct perf_event;
>  
> +#define PERF_EVENT_TRAN_STARTED 1
> +
>  /**
>   * struct pmu - generic performance monitoring unit
>   */
> @@ -542,6 +544,9 @@ struct pmu {
>  	void (*stop)			(struct perf_event *event);
>  	void (*read)			(struct perf_event *event);
>  	void (*unthrottle)		(struct perf_event *event);
> +	void (*start_txn)		(const struct pmu *pmu);
> +	void (*stop_txn)		(const struct pmu *pmu);
> +	int (*commit_txn)		(const struct pmu *pmu);


Please add a few comments that briefly explain what these
*_txn callbacks are supposed to mean.

Unless txn is an acronym that most kernel developers are used to.

Thanks.

--
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/