linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] event: don't divide events if it has field period

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: <CANaxB-xOQr=gHGRwPUoZN7cMdss48Q5A2XJvU7Kg+MaCZeqX9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:22:20 +0300
From:	Andrew Wagin <avagin@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Andrew Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] event: don't divide events if it has field period

Hello Peter,

11 ноября 2011 г. 13:54 пользователь Andrew Vagin <avagin@...il.com> написал:
> On 11/09/2011 03:55 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 15:54 +0300, Andrew Vagin wrote:
>>>
>>> This patch solves the following problem:
>>>
>>> Now some samples may be lost due to throttling. The number of samples is
>>> restricted by sysctl_perf_event_sample_rate/HZ.  A trace event is
>>> divided on some samples according to event's period.  I don't sure, that
>>> we should generate more than one sample on each trace event. I think the
>>> better way to use SAMPLE_PERIOD.
>>
>> It would be yes, but this code predates that, also it needs to work even
>> if the user doesn't provide SAMPLE_PERIOD.

I have not understood exactly what I should do now.
I'm going to send the third version of this patches. New version
contains only a small fix according with the comment for path 4/7.
In new version I am not going to fix the problem about which we
discussed early. I have some reasons for it:

*  It's another task. My decision is more effective for my task and  I
believe that exists many cases where my decision may be suitable. I
want to say, that it may be in kernel, event if the problem would not
exist at all.
* __perf_count() has been broken for a long time and nobody reports
this problem, so we can say, that the problem isn't urgent.
* Only few events sched:sched_stat_* are affected by this problem.
* I am not sure, that we should to solve this problem. The "problem"
may be not a problem at all. We have ability to customize
sample_period and we have events about that some events were
throttled.

If you have any objection, send them to me.
--
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/