linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Do not fail on processing out of order event

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:	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 15:23:21 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Do not fail on processing out of order event

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 12:16:26PM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 03:07:07PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:53:00AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:56:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> > > > Arnaldo, I suppose the fix will go upstream via your tree, as a 
> > > > pull request for v3.18 fixes?
> 
> > > Right, I can do that.
> 
> > > And I agree with the "expected" for events that are out of the current
> > > reordering window, i.e. we can't insert something into previous windows,
> > > so those are, humm, what would be a good name:
> > > stats->out_of_reordering_window, while stats->reordered, would be for
> > > events that were found out of order, but were successfully sorted as
> > > part of a flush operation, right?
>  
> > the forced flush is when we find out we crossed the allowed allocation
> > space for the samples queue.. so we take the half of the sorted queue
> > and flush it.. for this case we break the flushing logic and we might
> 
> Well, we make it more likely than without a forced flush to find out of
> order events, because the window suddenly became smaller, its like we
> found a FLUSH event right there, no?

yep, still I dont see the need to count those 2 cases separately,
both these types (of out of order event) have same implications
for the report

jirka

> 
> > (probably just in theory) get out of order events
>  
> > but IMO both cases of out of order event are equal.. we dont do
> > anything special for forced flushed AFAIK
> 
> - Arnaldo
--
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/