linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to vDSO

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: <1419010969.13012.7@mail.thefacebook.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Dec 2014 12:42:49 -0500
From:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, <Kernel-team@...com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] X86: Add a thread cpu time implementation to
 vDSO



On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> 
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra 
> <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>  On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 04:22:59PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>  Bad news: this patch is incorrect, I think.  Take a look at
>>>  update_rq_clock -- it does fancy things involving irq time and
>>>  paravirt steal time.  So this patch could result in extremely
>>>  non-monotonic results.
>> 
>>  Yeah, I'm not sure how (and if) we could make all that work :/
> 
> I obviously can't comment on what Facebook needs, but if I were
> rigging something up to profile my own code*, I'd want a count of
> elapsed time, including user, system, and probably interrupt as well.
> I would probably not want to count time during which I'm not
> scheduled, and I would also probably not want to count steal time.
> The latter makes any implementation kind of nasty.
> 
> The API presumably doesn't need to be any particular clock id for
> clock_gettime, and it may not even need to be clock_gettime at all.
> 
> Is perf self-monitoring good enough for this?  If not, can we make it
> good enough?
> 
> * I do this today using CLOCK_MONOTONIC

The clock_gettime calls are used for a wide variety of things, but 
usually they are trying to instrument how much CPU the application is 
using.  So for example with the HHVM interpreter they have a ratio of 
the number of hhvm instructions they were able to execute in N seconds 
of cputime.  This gets used to optimize the HHVM implementation and can 
be used as a push blocking counter (code can't go in if it makes it 
slower).

Wall time isn't a great representation of this because it includes 
factors that might be outside a given HHVM patch, but it sounds like 
we're saying almost the same thing.

I'm not familiar with the perf self monitoring?

-chris




--
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/