linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user samples with kernel samples

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:	Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:13 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...il.com>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user samples
 with kernel samples

On 11/13/2012 12:58 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 18:04 -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 10:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> I've no problem with adding CLOCK_PERF (or another/better name).
>> Hrm. I'm not excited about exporting that sort of internal kernel
>> details to userland.
>>
>> The behavior and expectations from sched_clock() has changed over the
>> years, so I'm not sure its wise to export it, since we'd have to
>> preserve its behavior from then on.
>>
>> Also I worry that it will be abused in the same way that direct TSC
>> access is, where the seemingly better performance from the more
>> careful/correct CLOCK_MONOTONIC would cause developers to write fragile
>> userland code that will break when moved from one machine to the next.
>>
>> I'd probably rather perf output timestamps to userland using sane clocks
>> (CLOCK_MONOTONIC), rather then trying to introduce a new time domain to
>> userland.   But I probably could be convinced I'm wrong.
> I'm surprised that perf has its own clock anyway. But I would like to
> export the tracing clocks. We have three (well four) of them:
>
> trace_clock_local() which is defined to be a very fast clock but may not
> be synced with other cpus (basically, it just calls sched_clock).
>
> trace_clock() which is not totally serialized, but also not totally off
> (between local and global). This uses local_clock() which is the same
> thing that perf_clock() uses.
>
> trace_clock_global() which is a monotonic clock across CPUs. It's much
> slower than the above, but works well when you require synced
> timestamps.
>
> There's also trace_clock_counter() which isn't even a clock :-)  It's
> just a incremental atomic counter that goes up every time it's called.
> This is the most synced clock, but is absolutely meaningless for
> timestamps. It's just a way to show ordered events.

Oof. This is getting uglier. I'd really prefer not to expose all these 
different internal clocks out userland. Especially via clock_gettime().

thanks
-john

--
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/