linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: Add sampling of the raw monotonic clock

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]

Date:	Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:05:59 +0100
From:	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-api@...r.kernel.org" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: Add sampling of the raw monotonic clock

On Fri, 2014-09-26 at 15:38 +0100, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > Then I have loads of normal normal samples, timestamped with sched clock
> > only, and every now and then one with both timestamps which then I can
> > use for time correlation. The whole point is that the frequency of such
> > "synchronisation" event can be much (much!) lower than of the normal
> > samples, but it still allows pretty good approximation (I was getting
> > accuracy of ~1 microsecond and better with sched_switch trace event
> > marked with additional raw monotonic timestamp).
> 
> Okay.  But in that case wouldn't it be enough to use just a single
> timestamp for each event - sched_clock for cpu-cycles and monotonic raw
> for sched_switch?

To do the correlation you need both timestamps to be "taken"
simultaneously:

        perf event     user event
       -----O--------------+-------------O------> t_mono
            :              |             :
            :              V             :
       -----O----------------------------O------> t_perf

Of course it's not possible get both values literally at the same time,
but placing them in a atomic context a couple of instructions from each
other still gives pretty good results. The larger this distance is, the
lower the accuracy will be. I must admit I haven't done such
experiments, but let me remind that I in my test I was getting results
in the range of 1000ns, with a single cycle of a 2GHz taking 0.5ns, so
moving the t_mono/t_perf value sampling further aside will reduce it
significantly...

Pawel

Pawel

--
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/