linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf record: mmap output file

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: <528B8D44.1050601@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:09:40 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf record: mmap output file - v5

On 11/19/13, 8:31 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> The only reason I reacted was because the changelog mentioned
>> avoiding a feedback loop -- so I obviously had to point out that it
>> didn't do such a thing, it only changed the details of the loop.
>
> So with MAP_POPULATE the 'feedback window' is moved entirely into the
> kernel (to within a single syscall) and is also reduced significantly,
> compared to a write() loop.

As I understand it we have to use MAP_SHARED, not MAP_PRIVATE for files. 
So MAP_POPULATE does not work here. (And I tried to verify -- 
MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_POPULATE drops the feedback loop, but the file is 0's 
after the header).

>> I'm fairly certain this particular problem is unavoidable, no matter
>> what the mechanism used, you can always create feedback.
>
> Well, we could exclude the profiling task itself from profiling events
> (just like ftrace and core bits of perf does it out of necessity), but
> I intentionally wanted to avoid that, to make sure we are honest and
> to make sure people don't tolerate profiling overhead that disturbs
> other workloads.

Samples generated by perf itself need to be observable -- e.g. process 
scheduling I want to see the time consumed by the data collector itself 
and there are times when 'perf trace -- perf ...' is useful.

perf just needs options to do the right thing and stay out of its own 
way. Having a restriction that you can't do system wide collection of 
systems calls AND faults does not seem all that limiting.

David

--
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/