linux-kernel - Re: perf: forcing instructions event to run on Fixed Counter 0

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: <CAMsRxfLUvRw-PUxgX_909PLCFtqqnKO3iiZ8Wvc5DHGAPp3yxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:21:44 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>
To:	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: perf: forcing instructions event to run on Fixed Counter 0

On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu> wrote:
>
> It turns out that perf_event for intel seems to use the INST_RETIRED.ALL
> event interchangably with the "Fixed Counter 0" event.
>
Yes, it does.

> It turns out they are not equivelent.  The Fixed Counter 0 event turns out
> to be deterministic, while INST_RETIRED.ALL has a bug where it counts
> extra events due to hardware interrupts.
>
Never heard of that problem. I know there was another problem due to leaking
during priv level transitions. It would be take a few instr or cycles to realize
you were not in user level any more when doing event:u.

Interrupt should impact fixed and generic counters the same way.

> Having a user-accessible deterministic instructions event would be really
> useful.  So is there a way we can specify we want an event to run on Fixed
> Counter 0?  I think there is code already that does this for Fixed Counter
> 2 for similar reasons.
>
No. Fixed counter 2 (ref-cycles) is a different reason. It's because it measures
an event that does not exist on generic counters: unhalted_reference_cycles.

> For an example of this happening in real life, take the
> ./retired_instr.all.x86_64 from my deterministic benchmark that
> I'll be presenting at the ISPASS conference next week.
>   (can be found here git://github.com/deater/deterministic.git )
>
> If you run this benchmark with the same event listed 5 times on an Ivy
> Bridge machine you get these results, notice the last one is the "proper"
> deterministic result and thus the one that ran on Fixed Counter 0.
>
Are you sure that the 5th event stayed in fixed counter 0 all along?

> $ perf stat -e instructions:u,instructions:u,instructions:u,instructions:u,instructions:u ./retired_instr.all.x86_64
> ...
>  Performance counter stats for './retired_instr.all.x86_64':
>
>        227,010,687 instructions:u            #    0.00  insns per cycle
>        227,010,687 instructions:u            #    0.00  insns per cycle
>        227,010,687 instructions:u            #    0.00  insns per cycle
>        227,010,687 instructions:u            #    0.00  insns per cycle
>        227,000,723 instructions:u            #    0.00  insns per cycle
>
>        1.902648316 seconds time elapsed
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vince Weaver
> vincent.weaver@...ne.edu
> http://www.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/
--
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/