linux-kernel - Re: disabling group leader perf

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: <4C84D77B.6040600@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:58:51 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: disabling group leader perf_event

  On 09/06/2010 02:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> Basically, to read() all events in one go.  I have many of them.
>>
>> My current problem is that I have an event (kvm_exit) which I want to
>> drill down by looking at a field (exit_reason).  So I create lots of
>> separate perf_events with a filter for each reason:
>> kvm_exit(exit_reason==0), kvm_exit(exit_reason==1), etc.  But filters
>> are fairly slow (can have ~60 such events on AMD), so I want to make
>> this drill-down optional.
> Yeah, filters suck.

Any idea why?  I saw nothing obvious in the code, except that there is 
lots of it.

> So what you're basically trying to do is create some histogram of
> exit_reason?

Yes, exactly.

> Being able to make histograms in-kernel has been on the todo list for a
> long while, its just that I never could come up with a sane
> interface.. :/

Interesting, I thought it was just me.

One option is to keep the existing filter interface, but recognize those 
cases and optimize the implementation.  Sort of like a compiler can 
optimize a large dense switch statement to a jump table.

>> Current plan is to have a group for the basic events and another group
>> for the drilldown events (each per-cpu), and activate the drilldown
>> group on user request.  perf will be able to schedule both groups
>> concurrently since they only contain tracepoints, yes?
> More or less, yeah (the scheduling of software and hardware events isn't
> properly separated atm -- am working on that). Software events have no
> scheduling constraints and should always get scheduled.

Great, thanks.

(one other issue - right now I'm using cpu events.  If I switch to task 
events, I lose events generated by workqueues, yes?)

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/