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: <51285BF1.2090208@linaro.org>
Date:	Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:04:33 -0800
From:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....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>,
	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 02/20/2013 02:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 10:25 -0800, John Stultz wrote:
>> So describe how the perf time domain is different then
>> CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW.
> The primary difference is that the trace/sched/perf time domain is not
> strictly monotonic, it is only locally monotonic -- that is two time
> stamps taken on the same cpu are guaranteed to be monotonic.

So how would a clock_gettime(CLOCK_PERF,...) interface help you figure 
out which cpu you got your timestamp from?


> Furthermore, to make it useful, there's an actual bound on the inter-cpu
> drift (implemented by limiting the drift to CLOCK_MONOTONIC).

So this sounds like you're already sort of interpolating to 
CLOCK_MONOTONIC, or am I just misunderstanding you?

> Additionally -- to increase use -- we also added a monotonic sync point
> when cpu A queries time of cpu B.

Not sure I'm following this bit. But I'll have to go look at the code on 
Monday.

>
>> My concern here is that we're basically creating a kernel interface
>> that
>> exports implementation-defined semantics (again: whatever perf does
>> right now). And I think folks want to do this, because adding
>> CLOCK_PERF
>> is easier then trying to:
>>
>> 1) Get a lock-free method for accessing CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW
>>
>> 2) Having perf interpolate its timestamps to CLOCK_MONOTONIC, or
>> CLOCKMONOTONIC_RAW when it exports the data
> Mostly cheaper, not easier. Given unstable TSC, MONOTONIC will have to
> fall back to another clock source (hpet, acpi_pm and other assorted
> crap).
>
> In order to avoid this, we'd had to relax the requirements. Using
> anything other than TSC is simply not an option.

Right, and this I understand. We can can play a little fast and lose 
with the rules for in-kernel uses, given the variety of hardware and the 
fact that performance is more critical then perfect accuracy. Since 
we're in-kernel we also have more information then userland does about 
what cpu we're running on, so we can get away with only 
locally-monotonic timestamps.

But I want to be careful if we're exporting this out to userland that 
its both useful and that there's an actual specification for how 
CLOCK_PERF behaves, applications can rely upon not changing in the future.

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/