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: <20130514083752.GA651@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 14 May 2013 10:37:53 +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 Mon, May 13, 2013 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 09:50:08AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > That's really a red herring: there's absolutely no reason why the 
> > > > kernel could not pass back the level of precision it provided.
> > > 
> > > All I've been saying is that doing random precision without feedback is 
> > > confusing.
> > 
> > I agree with that.
> > 
> > > We also don't really have a good feedback channel for this kind of 
> > > thing. The best I can come up with is tagging each and every sample with 
> > > the quality it represents. I think we can do with only one extra 
> > > PERF_RECORD_MISC bit, but it looks like we're quickly running out of 
> > > those things.
> > 
> > Hm, how about passing precision back to user-space at creation time, in 
> > the perf_attr data structure? There's no need to pass it back in every 
> > sample, precision will not really change during the life-time of an event.
> 
> Ah indeed, we talked about modifying the attr structure before (error details
> or so). Did something like that ever make it in, or would this be the first
> use now?

That remained on the level of talk AFAICT.

> > The vast majority of code gets measured by cycles:pp more accurately 
> > than cycles.
> > 
> > We could try and see how many people complain. It's not like it's hard 
> > to undo such a change of the default event?
> 
> I suppose so.. Alternatively we can have the PEBS event read a 'real' 
> cycles counter and weight the sample based on that. Bit cumbersome, esp 
> if you want to implement it kernel side, but it could possibly work 
> around this issue.

Looks a bit cumbersome indeed. Lets try the simpler approach and see?

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/