linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results

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: <CABPqkBQ2wD_knJP9FQxThSxNng4DZhtRxeUUAW0efAs9=jBXEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:24:02 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf stat: explicit grouping yields unexpected results

On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> * Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:
>
>> Jiri,
>>
>> I was trying the grouping support in perf stat and I was surprised
>> to see that if I create a group that is too big to be scheduled, and
>> where only N out of P events can fit, perf stat still yields counts
>> for the N events. I was expecting 0 counts or <not supported>.
>>
>> The kernel semantic is to schedule all the events in a group or
>> none. Perf does something different and this is confusing. If you
>> use explicit grouping then I think you want to group to fail if not
>> all the events can be scheduled:
>>
>> On an IvyBridge:
>> $ perf stat --g -e
>> '{cycles,instructions,branches,branches,branches,branches,branches}'
>> noploop 1
>>      3 229 417 079 cycles
>>      3 223 919 023 instructions              #    1,00  insns per cycle
>>      3 220 868 098 branches
>>      3 220 868 098 branches
>>      3 220 868 098 branches
>>      3 220 868 098 branches
>>    <not supported> branches
>>
>> I think it should be: <not supported> for all events.
>
> Btw., does the kernel side currently support discovery of such
> impossible group scheduling constraints at group setup time? If not
> then it probably should and it should reject them straight away.
>
The kernel does validate events as they are added to a group.
That's why we have validate_event(), validate_group() and
the fake_cpuc mode.
--
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/