linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] perf: IRQ-bound performance events

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 14 Jan 2014 17:07:52 +0100
From:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.jf.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 0/4] perf: IRQ-bound performance events

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:50:37PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 07:22:32PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > This is version 2 of RFC "perf: IRQ-bound performance events". That is an
> > introduction of IRQ-bound performance events - ones that only count in a
> > context of a hardware interrupt handler. Ingo suggested to extend this
> > functionality to softirq and threaded handlers as well:
> 
> Hi Alexander,
> 
> I still strongly think we should use toggle events to achieve that:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/25/227

Hi Frederic,

The toggle events would not allow counting per-action in hardware interrupt
context. The design I propose provisions any possible combination of actions/
IRQs.

I.e. if we had few drivers on IRQn and few drivers on IRQm we could assign
an event to let's say ISR0, ISR2 on IRQn and ISR1 on IRQm.

Moreover, given that hardware context handlers are running with local
interrupts disabled and therefore an IRQ-bound event could be enabled/
disabled only from a single handler at a time - we just need to allocate
a single hardware counter for any possible combination.

Unless I missing something, neither kernel nor user level for toggle events
can meet the features described above.

I think it would be ideal if the two approaches could be converged somehow,
but I just do not know how at the moment. I believe the next step is to
measure the overhead Andi mentioned. That well might be a showstopper for
either or both approaches.

By contrast with the hardware context, the toggle events seem to able
monitoring softirq in its current form.

As of the threaded context handlers, I have not come up with the idea how to
make it yet, but it does not seem the toggle events are able eigher.

> This will let us count not just IRQs (-e 'cycles,irq_entry/on=cycles/,irq_exit/off=cycles/') but much more. 
> 
> The patchset still needs some polishing but I think that's a better diection.

Thanks, Frederic.

> Thanks.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Gordeev
agordeev@...hat.com
--
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/