linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf_event: inst_retired:any_p:c=16:i=1 is not equivalent to cpu_clk_unhalted:thread

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: <AANLkTikG_Tnh53Cp8fStPBmeuowZgQp8HvMLXZ4kxSbv@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:26:31 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf_event: inst_retired:any_p:c=16:i=1 is not equivalent
 to cpu_clk_unhalted:thread_p

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 19:05 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Peter,
>>
>> commit 7639dae0ca11038286bbbcda05f2bef601c1eb8d
>> Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>> Date:   Tue Dec 14 21:26:40 2010 +0100
>>
>>     perf, x86: Provide a PEBS capable cycle event
>>
>>
>>
>> Even with the transformation cmask=16:invert=1, you are not quite
>> counting the same thing.
>>
>> inst_retired:any_p:c=16:i=1  is different from cpu_clk_unhalted:thread_p
>>
>> Simply because, I think, this form of inst_retired counts in HALTED state.
>
> Drad it does indeed:
>
> # perf stat -a -e cycles:p -e cycles sleep 1
>
>  Performance counter stats for 'sleep 1':
>
>        61,634,870 cycles
>        26,703,249 cycles
>
>        1.000860820  seconds time elapsed
>
What's interesting here is that this cycles:p is not event equal to 1x CPU freq
given your measuring for 1s. So it must stop counting at some point.

>
>> This automatic transformation would be "okay" in per-thread mode, but
>> not in system-wide mode. It should not be done under the cover. I would
>> rather have this option at the user level.
>
> Agreed, since its not identical it had best be done in userspace, too
> bad :/ I'll revert this patch.
>
Yes, it would have been nice. But if you know what you're doing, this is
still doable from user space. So I think we are okay.
--
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/