linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf lock: Drop "-a" option from set of default arguments to cmd

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]

Message-ID: <4BE6CC5F.2020503@dcl.info.waseda.ac.jp>
Date:	Sun, 09 May 2010 23:53:19 +0900
From:	Hitoshi Mitake <mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, h.mitake@...il.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf lock: Drop "-a" option from set of default	arguments
 to cmd_record()

On 05/09/10 01:14, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
 > On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 05:10:29PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
 >> This patch drops "-a" from record_args, which is passed to cmd_record().
 >>
 >> Even if user wants to record all lock events during process runs,
 >>          perf lock record -a<program>  <argument>  ...
 >> is enough for this purpose.
 >>
 >> This can reduce size of perf.data.
 >>
 >> % sudo ./perf lock record whoami
 >> root
 >> [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
 >> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.439 MB perf.data (~19170 samples) ]
 >> % sudo ./perf lock record -a whoami   # with -a option
 >> root
 >> [ perf record: Woken up 0 times to write data ]
 >> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 48.962 MB perf.data (~2139197 
samples) ]
 >>
 >> This patch was made on perf/test of random-tracing.git,
 >> could you queue this, Frederic?
 >>
 >> Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu>
 >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra<a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
 >> Cc: Paul Mackerras<paulus@...ba.org>
 >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo<acme@...hat.com>
 >> Cc: Jens Axboe<jens.axboe@...cle.com>
 >> Cc: Jason Baron<jbaron@...hat.com>
 >> Cc: Xiao Guangrong<xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
 >> Signed-off-by: Hitoshi Mitake<mitake@....info.waseda.ac.jp>
 >
 >
 > Thanks, will test it and if it's fine I'll queue.
 >
 > I did a lot of tests these last days to understand what was going on
 > with perf lock, I mean the fact we have various bad locking scenario.
 >
 > So far, the state machine looks rather good. In fact, the real problem
 > is that we don't have every events. We lose a _lot_ of them and that's
 > because the frequency of lock events is too high and perf record
 > can't keep up.

Really, I didn't think about lack of events :(

 >
 > I think I'm going to unearth the injection code to reduce the size
 > of these events.
 >
 >

Yeah, injection will be really helpful thing.

And I have a rough idea for reducing event frequency.

Many lock event sequences are like this form:
  * acquire -> acquired -> release
  * acquire -> contended -> acquired -> release
I think that making 3 or 4 events per each lock sequences
is waste of CPU time and memory space.

If threads store time of each events
and make only 1 event at time of release,
we will be able to reduce lots of time and space.

For example, ID of each lock instance is 8 byte in x86_64.
In this scheme 8 * 4 byte for ID will be only 8 byte.
I think this optimization has worth to consider because of
high frequency of lock events.

How do you think?
--
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/