linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] perf pmu interface -v2

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:	Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:13:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	paulus <paulus@...ba.org>,
	stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Deng-Cheng Zhu <dengcheng.zhu@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/11] perf pmu interface -v2

On Sat, 2010-06-26 at 09:22 -0700, Corey Ashford wrote:

> These patches look like they are really taking us in the right 
> direction.  Thanks for all your effort on this!

Yeah, although I seem to have managed to wreck all architectures tested
so far (I found some iffy on x86 too), I guess I need to carefully look
at things.

> As for the "hardware write batching", can you describe a bit more about 
> what you have in mind there?  I wonder if this might have something to 
> do with accounting for PMU hardware which is slow to access, for 
> example, via I2C via an internal bridge.

Right, so the write batching is basically delaying writing out the PMU
state to hardware until pmu::pmu_enable() time. It avoids having to
re-program the hardware when, due to a scheduling constraint, we have to
move counters around.

So say, we context switch a task, and remove the old events and add the
new ones under a single pmu::pmu_disable()/::pmu_enable() pair, we will
only hit the hardware twice (once to disable, once to enable), instead
of for each individual ::del()/::add().

For this to work we need to have an association between a context and a
pmu, otherwise its very hard to know what pmu to disable/enable; the
alternative is all of them which isn't very attractive.

Then again, it doesn't make sense to have task-counters on an I2C
attached PMU simply because writing to the PMU could cause context
switches.

--
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/