linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: Don't schedule tracepoints when 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: <20110412154850.GA2240@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:48:53 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Don't schedule tracepoints when exclude_kernel
 is set

On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:37:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 15:27 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 03:14:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 22:57 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Instead of checking attr.exclude_kernel anytime a tracepoint
> > > > event triggers, simply don't schedule the tracepoint it that
> > > > attribute is set. This makes one test less in the tracing
> > > > path.
> > > 
> > > Meh, I'd much rather someone spend some time on finishing the below,
> > > which is a much bigger improvement for trace-events.
> > 
> > I secretely added that to my pile already :)
> > That's indeed something we really want.
> > 
> > The above is just a little thing I noticed yesterday and I wanted
> > to fix. Nothing more.
> > 
> > About that tracepoint collection, I'm not sure I like the idr though.
> > That thing seems to be O(log(n)), I which we can rather approach O(1)
> > when possible, using a hlist perhaps.
> 
> We only do 2 idr lookups at most and don't get to muck about with hash
> table collisions etc. But if you can show that that is the bottleneck
> you can replace the task/cpu idrs with a hashtable.

We can probably start with the irds to begin with. The implementation
can be enhanced anytime.

> 
> You will still need an IDR to deal with the traceevents (trace_type_idr)
> in order to get the dense ID space, and the per-event idr isn't used in
> the fast path at all.

Yep, no problem with 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/