linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf events finer grained context instrumentation / context exclusion

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: <20100610071517.GD12752@nowhere>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:15:19 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] perf events finer grained context instrumentation
	/ context exclusion

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 08:26:18AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Here is the new version of per context exclusion, based on hooks on 
> > irq_enter/irq_exit. I haven't observed slowdowns but I haven't actually 
> > measured the impact.
> 
> One thing that would be nice to see in this discussion is a comparison of 
> before/after perf stat --repeat runs.
> 
> Something like:
> 
>   perf stat --repeat ./hackbench 5
> 
> Done with full stat, and then also done with hardirqs/softirqs excluded. (i.e. 
> task context stats only)



Right, so I just tried each perf stat default events with :t and it hung up ;-)

(Not severely, I can kill perf stat with ^Z, but still there is something I need
to fix).



> 
> I.e. does the feature really give us the expected statistical stability in 
> results? Does it really exclude hardirq/softirq workloads, etc.?


But yeah, before posting these patches I gave that a try with the instruction
counter and it didn't change much against the usual results, it's about the same
variations.

I just know the exclusion works by using perf record -g / perf report, as the
callchains are truly reliable against the exclusion rules, and since
counting and samples are treated the same in this scheme (we just deactivate
/reactivate, there is no post blocking or fixup).

I just don't know where the entropy comes from. May be once I'll have the hang
fixed I'll be able to test with all the default stat events and see a better
overview of progress.

--
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/