linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: exynos

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: <539EB03C.5080100@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:52:12 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Chirantan Ekbote <chirantan@...omium.org>,
	David Riley <davidriley@...omium.org>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: exynos_mct: Fix ftrace

On 06/16/2014 06:40 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2014 07:30 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>> In (93bfb76 clocksource: exynos_mct: register sched_clock callback) we
>>> supported using the MCT as a scheduler clock.  We properly marked
>>> exynos4_read_sched_clock() as notrace.  However, we then went and
>>> called another function that _wasn't_ notrace.  That means if you do:
>>>
>>>     cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/
>>>     echo function_graph > current_tracer
>>>
>>> You'll get a crash.
>>>
>>> Fix this (but still let other readers of the MCT be trace-enabled) by
>>> adding an extra function.  It's important to keep other users of MCT
>>> traceable because the MCT is actually quite slow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Doug,
>>
>> could you elaborate ? I don't get the 'because the MCT ... slow'
>
> Sorry, I was trying to avoid duplication in the series and it's more
> obvious when you look at parts 2 and 3 of the series.  ;)
>
> Doing the math (please correct any miscalculations) using the numbers
> from the other patches: You can see that the existing code takes
> 1323852 us for 1000000 gettimeofday in userspace.  The fastest
> implementation (just shaving to a 32-bit timer) gets us as fast as
> ~1000000 us for 1000000 gettimeofday in userspace.
>
>  From profiling, I believe that gettimeofday from userspace is about
> 50% overhead (system call, multiplication, copies, etc) and about 50%
> MCT read.  That means that the fastest you can possibly do an MCT read
> is in .5us or 500ns.
>
> I believe an A15 has something like 1 or 2 cycles per instruction.  If
> it were 2 cycles per instruction, it can execute a normal instruction
> on a 2GHz machine in .5ns.  That means we can execute 1000 normal
> instructions in the time it takes to do a since MCT access.
>
> ...so I guess that's what I'd call slow.  ;)  What do you think?  I
> know that the MCT read shows up in whole system profiles of
> gettimeofday.

Hi Dough,

thanks for the explanation. I still don't get why it is important to 
keep others users of mct traceable because it is quite slow ? May be it 
is what you explained here, but I miss the connection between 'the other 
users' <-> 'traceable' <-> 'because slow'.

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/