linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] tracing: Adding cgroup aware tracing functionality

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: <1302347315.9086.1246.camel@twins>
Date:	Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:08:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	David Sharp <dhsharp@...gle.com>,
	Vaibhav Nagarnaik <vnagarnaik@...gle.com>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tracing: Adding cgroup aware tracing functionality

On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 13:02 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 16:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > > As you said perf has a lot of overhead due to data that it saves per
> > > event. 
> > 
> > Someday you should actually read the perf code before you say something.
> 
> I have looked at the code although not as much recently, but I do plan
> on looking at it again in much more detail. But you are correct that I
> did not make this comment on the code itself, but on looking at the
> data:

> 1051776/8766 = 119

> 2957312/38268 = 77
> 
> As you stated, I need to look more into the perf code (which I plan on
> doing), but it seems that perf adds 42 bytes more per event. Perhaps
> this is something we can fix. 

Aside from the 8 byte header everything else is configurable with
PERF_SAMPLE_flags and probably has some overlap with stuff we also have
in the tracepoint data we then get through PERF_SAMPLE_RAW

> I'd love to make both perf and ftrace be
> able to limit its header. There's no reason to record the pid for every
> event if we don't need to. As well as the preempt count and interrupt
> status. But these are legacy from the latency tracer code from -rt.

Right.

> I think there's a lot of work that we can do make tracing in perf more
> compatible with the tracing features of ftrace. I did say the ugly word
> "roadmap" but perhaps it's just direction that we need. I feel we are
> all a bunch of cooks with their own taste, and we don't all like the
> spices used by each other.

Partly yeah, but there's also real functional differences, the last time
I profiled perf with perf (yay for recursion) we spend a lot of time in
conditionals. Due to the fact that perf is mainly sampling based (and
tracing being samples with period==1) and all that output
configurability there's a true forest of if statements to pass through
and I'm fairly sure we totally trash the branch predictor on that.


--
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/