linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v0 00/71] perf: Add support for Intel Processor Trace

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: <20131216143751.GA7959@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:37:51 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 00/71] perf: Add support for Intel Processor Trace


* Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> > One good approach to do that would be to unify the BTS and PT 
> > tooling (the kernel side can be unified as well, to the extent it 
> > makes sense), and to prove it via actual functionality that this 
> > stuff matters. BTS is available widely, so the tooling can be 
> > tested by anyone who's interested.
> >
> > Allow people to record crashes in core dumps, allow them to look 
> > at histograms/spectrograms of BTS/PT traces, zoom in on actual 
> > traces, etc. - make it easier to handle this huge amount of data 
> > and visualize traces in other ways you find useful, etc.
> >
> > None of that is done right now via BTS so nobody uses it.
> 
> So I can make BTS appear as an "itrace" pmu similarly to PT. One 
> question that comes to mind is should we then dispose of the old 
> interface that's used for accessing BTS functionality or make it 
> coexist with the new one.

So we could make the old ABI a CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS_COMPAT_X86_BTS kind 
of legacy option, turned off by default. That allows us its eventual 
future phasing out.

It all depends on how useful the new tooling becomes: if interesting 
things can be done with it via an obvious, powerful interface then 
people might start using it.

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/