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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 15:09:14 +0200 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...e.hu, efault@....de, paulus@...ba.org, acme@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHSET] sched,perf: unify tracers in sched and move perf on top of TP Hello, On 05/05/2010 02:33 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 05/05/2010 02:38 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> As it stands I'd argue to simply drop this whole idea. The SCHED_EVENT() >> thing doesn't look like its worth the obfuscation and I'm very much >> opposed to making perf and sched_notifiers rely on tracepoints. > > We can make perf rely on sched_notifiers, I think it's exactly the same > case as kvm - extra cpu state that needs switching at context switch > time. We could also make fpu switching use sched_notifiers, but that's > pushing it a bit. Oh, that was my first attempt too. The difference between TPs and sched_notifiers is the enable condition. TP is system-wide while sched_notifier is per-task. The thing is that for perf hooks, system-wide enable condition works much better. Also, w/ sched_notifiers, there's the problem that no one else but self can enable/disable it (which can be changed but doing it without causing call time overhead requires a bit of effort). Thanks. -- tejun -- 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