linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] perf: Check if we should exclude idle thread in perf_exclude

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100831152132.GD5259@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:21:34 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] perf: Check if we should exclude idle thread
	in perf_exclude_event()

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:54:07PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 01:13:43PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > Don't open code the event check for excluding the idle thread. Instead
> > > include the check in perf_exclude_event().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
> > > ---
> > >  kernel/perf_event.c |    8 +++++---
> > >  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > index 0d38f27..16b0476 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> > > @@ -4310,6 +4310,9 @@ static int perf_exclude_event(struct perf_event *event,
> > >  
> > >  		if (event->attr.exclude_kernel && !user_mode(regs))
> > >  			return 1;
> > > +
> > > +		if (event->attr.exclude_idle && current->pid == 0)
> > > +			return 1;
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Right.
> > 
> > But one of the problems people have reported is that they can miss
> > interrupts samples if they happen in idle. Hence we have decided
> > that exclude_idle should exclude events that happen in idle process
> > context but not in interrupts interrupting idle.
> > 
> > So adding an in_interrupt() check would perhaps be better.
> > 
> > I plan to do this exclusion using the per context exclusion, which is
> > a patchset I have in queue. But until then, having this patch is better.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	return 0;
> > > @@ -4512,9 +4515,8 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart perf_swevent_hrtimer(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> > >  	regs = get_irq_regs();
> > >  
> > >  	if (regs && !perf_exclude_event(event, regs)) {
> > > -		if (!(event->attr.exclude_idle && current->pid == 0))
> > > -			if (perf_event_overflow(event, 0, &data, regs))
> > > -				ret = HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > > +		if (perf_event_overflow(event, 0, &data, regs))
> > > +			ret = HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > But yeah if we add an in_interrupt() check in perf_exclude_event(), it
> > won't work here. This one needs to check if irqs are nesting :)
> > 
> > Bah, checking we interrupted softirqs is probably enough. I guess we
> > don't care about nesting hardirqs.
> 
> This patch isn't really worth it on its own, I only grouped the idle
> check into perf_exclude_event() because patch 3/5 introduced a new
> caller. As you've said, the semantics at the various callsites are
> quite complex. It's probably best to wait for your patchset :)


Ok :)

--
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/