linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] perf: Adding better precise

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: <20130510103112.GA18755@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 May 2013 12:31:12 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] perf: Adding better precise_ip field handling


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:18:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > so you mean just detect that by opening events with increasing precise 
> > > > and see how far we could get.. could be I guess, though the 'precise' 
> > > > sysfs attribute seems more fit to me
> > > 
> > > The other way around, start at ppp end at !p, then use the one that 
> > > worked.
> > 
> > Really, instead of this silly 'probing until it works' notion, how about 
> > the radical idea that we pass to the kernel our request, and the kernel 
> > fulfills our wish to the best of its ability?
> > 
> > This could be done as a new PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES_PRECISE event, to 
> > which tooling could migrate, without changing existing semantics.
> > 
> > The problem with the complex probing is that it's totally unnecessary 
> > complexity that results from lack of passing the right information to the 
> > kernel. Forcing that will only hinder user-space adoption of our precise 
> > profiling facilities.
> 
> The part I have trouble with is that its a vague request and you'll get 
> a vague answer.

PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES_PRECISE is not a vague request at all: it means 
'get me the most precise cycles profiling available on this system'.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/