linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BANLkTinq=_KLGu0xAJCYMgRqVBkNXUozzw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 May 2011 23:13:02 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <minggr@...il.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: Carve out cgroup-related code

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
<fweisbec@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:18:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:51:17AM -0400, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 19:09 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> >
>> > I can't really say I like this move stuff into perf_event.h and then
>> > move it out again dance. Makes it exceedingly hard for me to tell wth
>> > actually happened.
>> >
>> > >  include/linux/perf_event.h |  132 --------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Compared with:
>> >
>> >  include/linux/perf_event.h |  126 +++++++++++-
>> >  include/linux/perf_event.h |    7 +-
>> >
>> > Its very hard to tell if this undoes the exact damage you did earlier.
>>
>> The right thing to do would be to redo the patches again with internal.h
>> in mind.
>>
>> > >  kernel/events/callchain.c  |    3 +
>> > >  kernel/events/cgroup.c     |    2 +
>> > >  kernel/events/core.c       |    2 +
>> > >  kernel/events/internal.h   |  129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > >  5 files changed, 136 insertions(+), 132 deletions(-)
>> > >  create mode 100644 kernel/events/internal.h
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> > > index 7978850..6b25452 100644
>> > > --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> > > +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
>> > > @@ -963,7 +963,6 @@ enum event_type_t {
>> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
>> > >  extern struct list_head pmus;
>> > >  extern int perf_pmu_register(struct pmu *pmu, char *name, int type);
>> > > -extern void perf_pmu_unregister(struct pmu *pmu);
>> >
>> > That just doesn't make any sense. If we publish one side of the API we
>> > should also publish the other side.
>>
>> Fair enough. It was unused, therefore I removed it.
>>
>> > >  extern int perf_num_counters(void);
>> > >  extern const char *perf_pmu_name(void);
>> > > @@ -985,8 +984,6 @@ perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct perf_event_attr *attr,
>> > >                                 int cpu,
>> > >                                 struct task_struct *task,
>> > >                                 perf_overflow_handler_t callback);
>> > > -extern u64 perf_event_read_value(struct perf_event *event,
>> > > -                                u64 *enabled, u64 *running);
>> >
>> > While not used, that is a valid part of the API.
>>
>> Yep, ditto.
>>
>> > >
>> > >  struct perf_sample_data {
>> > >         u64                             type;
>> > > @@ -1152,60 +1149,10 @@ extern int perf_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
>> > >                              struct perf_event *event, unsigned int size,
>> > >                              int nmi, int sample);
>> > >  extern void perf_output_end(struct perf_output_handle *handle);
>> > > -extern void perf_output_copy(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
>> > > -                            const void *buf, unsigned int len);
>> >
>> > idem
>> >
>> > >  extern int perf_swevent_get_recursion_context(void);
>> > > -extern void perf_swevent_put_recursion_context(int rctx);
>> >
>> > Again, creating asymmetry.
>>
>> Ok, I won't be able to redo the patches before Mo. due to travel. Also,
>> I think that you should do the splitting, as I suggested so at the
>> beginning!
>
> I can take it if you want. I'm currently splitting the buffer
> part so I can try to relay the rest as well :)

Another split could be to split the software pmus out.
perf_swevent, perf_cpu_clock and perf_task_clock.

-- 
Lin Ming -- Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/