linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] perf tool: Parse general/raw events from sysfs

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]

Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:38:12 -0700
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] perf tool: Parse general/raw events from sysfs

Lin,

On Sun, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-08 at 07:47 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2011-08-07 at 04:10 +0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:35 AM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
>> >> > PMU can export general events to sysfs, for example,
>> >> >
>> >> > /sys/bus/event_source/devices/uncore/events
>> >> > └── cycle
>> >> >
>> >> > Then specify the event as <pmu>:<event>,
>> >> >
>> >> > $ sudo perf stat -a -C 0 -e uncore:cycle
>> >>
>> >> I think this event syntax should be adjusted a bit.
>> >>
>> >> How would the tool differentiate:
>> >>        perf stat -e uncore:cycle
>> >> form:
>> >>       perf stat -e cycle:u
>> >>
>> >> It would have to scan sysfs for a 'cycle' PMU and conclude
>> >> there is none,  then resolve the 'cycle' event name. And if
>> >> you're unlucky and you have a event name that matches
>> >> the PMU name, you get into troubles.
>> >>
>> >> I think, one could instead do:
>> >>
>> >>     perf stat -e uncore::cycle:k
>> >>
>> >> That way, by virtue of the '::' separator, the tool would know
>> >> that it needs to first look into sysfs for an 'uncore' PMU, then
>> >> it needs to look for the 'cycle' event.
>> >
>> > Yes, I like this '::' separator too.
>> > Will update to use it.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I also use the '::' notation in libpfm4 to separate the PMU model
>> >> form the event+umask+modifiers.
>> >>
>> >> I also suspect that with this sysfs interface for PMU models, you
>> >> would simply add a number to differentiate each instance of a PMU.
>> >> So for GPU, you would do:
>> >>     perf stat -e  gfx0::cycles
>> >>
>> >> Is that right?
>> >
>> > A number or other thing is OK.
>> >
>> > int perf_pmu_register(struct pmu *pmu, char *name, int type)
>> > will be called to register a PMU.
>> >
>> > So I think any name that can differentiate each instance is OK.
>> >
>> > Adding a number looks like the easiest way.
>> >
>> Well, there is something I am still missing here.
>>
>> Based on the current patch, it seems that each instance
>> of a PMU needs to register to get an ID and an entry in
>> sysfs.
>>
>> Suppose you have a system with two graphics cards. Then,
>> you would need two IDs and two entries in sysfs to correctly
>> name each gfx card.
>>
>> That means that the kernel would have to iterate over each instance
>> of a PMU and create a name for it, e.g., something like:
>>    for_each_gfx_card(i) {
>>        sprintf(name, "gfx%d", i);
>>       register_pmu(&pmu, name);
>>   }
>>
>> Is that what you are proposing?
>
> Think this more closely. My previous reply was not correct.
>
> We only need to register one pmu with two same graphics cards.
> Then we can overload pid argument of sys_perf_event_open() to
> differentiate each instance of graphic card.
>
> Just like perf cgroup does.
>
Some more thoughts on that.

Cgroup is very specific. It can only work an an extension of system-wide mode.
Thus, we know we can safely overload the PID argument with the cgroup fd. But
then, we also need to tell the kernel that PID is a cgroup fd and for
that we use
a flag.

I don't think you can do that with your PMU proposal.

You can pass the PMU class in attr.config, but if you pass the PMU instance
in PID, it means you predict that there will never be another PMU
where per-thread
mode will make sense. But even if that were to be true, you'd have to
still have to
pass an extra flag to denote that you are using a extended PMU with an instance
in PID. Or the alternative it to rely on PERF_TYPE_MAX to detect a dynamically
registered PMU. It's not too pretty. This whole thing makes me wonder
what perf_type_id
is meant for then....
--
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/