linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Perf: Correct Assumptions about Sample Timestamps in Passes

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: <52B479E1.7020204@gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:09:53 -0700
From:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:	Joseph Schuchart <joseph.schuchart@...dresden.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	thomas.ilsche@...dresden.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Perf: Correct Assumptions about Sample Timestamps in
 Passes

On 12/20/13, 5:27 AM, Joseph Schuchart wrote:
> I know this comes late, but: As far as I can see, your change does not
> preserve the logic of the code I suggested. The idea was to first gather
> all the maximum timestamps of all cpus (that is, the last timestamp seen
> on each cpu) and then determine the minimum of these maxima. These are
> two distinct steps that I think cannot be combined in one update. Your

  A number of people have reported similar problems -- timestamps below 
last flush time. This approach would solve that problem for data 
processed from files, so it would be a good improvement.

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/