linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v0 04/71] itrace: Infrastructure for instruction flow tracing units

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: <87zjnys0gj.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Dec 2013 16:22:36 +0200
From:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 04/71] itrace: Infrastructure for instruction flow tracing units

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 04:01:04PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> > Why don't you start by explaining _why_ you need a second stream to
>> > begin with?
>> 
>> Oh, I'm sure I've explained it earlier ([1], [2])
>
> See, I didn't read 0 because that information gets lost and patches
> should be self explanatory, and i didn't get to the Intel driver yet
> because well, I got stuck in the generic code.

Sure. The general concept is more important than the actual driver at
this point anyway.

>> but why not. The data
>> in the second stream is generated at a rate which is hundreds of
>> megabytes per second per core. Decoding this data is ~1000 times slower
>> than generating it. Ergo, can't be done in kernel, needs to be exported
>> as-is to userspace for later retreival and decoding. Doing it via perf
>> stream means an extra copy, which at these rates is a waste. Ergo, a
>> second buffer.
>
> Still confused, if you cannot copy it into one buffer, then why can you
> copy it into a second buffer?

It's not copied, hardware writes directly into that second buffer.

I've done the same with BTS now (as Ingo suggested) and it also benefits
from this approach.

Regards,
--
Alex
--
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/