linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf, x86: Add INST

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]

Message-ID: <CABPqkBQVwGH7GAVXAXjR1inWnWYeWuVG7Aj-aWAzAksdGq8oeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Aug 2014 19:47:56 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf, x86: Add INST_RETIRED.ALL workarounds

[+perf tool maintainers]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> I understand all your points, but there's no alternative.
> The only other way would be to disable INST_RETIRED.ALL.
>
You cannot do that either. INST_RETIRED:ALL is important.
I assume the bug applies whether or not the event is used
with a filter.

I think we need to ensure that by looking at the perf.data file,
one can reconstruct the total number of inst_Retired:all
occurrences for the run. With a fixed period, one would do
num_samples * fixed_period. I know the Gooda tool does
that. It is used to estimate the number of events captured
vs. the number of events occurring.

So what I am saying is that on BDW, we need to have
perf force PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD even with a fixed
period is passed. The kernel cannot simply add
PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD to the event sample_format
because the tool would get confused by the sample
record size otherwise.

I understand this is not pretty. We'd need to have
a on the evsel just before making the syscall. That
callback would be for x86 and it would check the
CPUID to force PERF_SAMPLE_PERIOD. That's
my thinking but there may be a better way of doing
this.
--
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/