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]

Message-ID: <5123E20E.60307@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:35:26 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	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>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: need to expose sched_clock to correlate user samples
 with kernel samples

On 02/19/2013 12:15 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Feb 2013, John Stultz wrote:
>> Would be interesting to compare and contrast that. Though you can't do
>> that in the kernel as the write hold time of the timekeeper seq is way
>> larger than the gtod->seq write hold time. I have a patch series in
>> work which makes the timekeeper seq hold time almost as short as that
>> of gtod->seq.
> As a side note. There is a really interesting corner case
> vs. virtualization.
>
>    VCPU0						VCPU1
>
>    update_wall_time()
>      write_seqlock_irqsave(&tk->lock, flags);
>      ....
>
> Host schedules out VCPU0
>
> Arbitrary delay
>
> Host schedules in VCPU0
> 						__vdso_clock_gettime()#1
>      update_vsyscall();
> 						__vdso_clock_gettime()#2
>
> Depending on the length of the delay which kept VCPU0 away from
> executing and depending on the direction of the ntp update of the
> timekeeping variables __vdso_clock_gettime()#2 can observe time going
> backwards.
>
> You can reproduce that by pinning VCPU0 to physical core 0 and VCPU1
> to physical core 1. Now remove all load from physical core 1 except
> VCPU1 and put massive load on physical core 0 and make sure that the
> NTP adjustment lowers the mult factor.
>
> Fun, isn't it ?

Yea, this has always worried me. I had a patch for this way way back, 
blocking vdso readers for the entire timekeeping update.
But it was ugly, hurt performance and no one seemed to be hitting the 
window you hit above.  None the less, you're probably right, we should 
find a way to do it right. I'll try to revive those patches.

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/