| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150227235702.GJ27767@tassilo.jf.intel.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:57:02 -0800 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: kan.liang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] proc: introduce /proc/<pid>/lbr_stack On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:05:45PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 09:54:34AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > perf record doesn't show where you're currently blocked. > > > > > > Of course it does; look at perf inject -s. > > > > Trace points don't support the LBR stack. > > Yes, indeed. But would it not make much more sense to squirrel the LBR > state into sched:sched_switch and teach that inject -s thing to dtrt, > than to make a proc file that's available on all archs but will only > work on 1-2 x86 uarchs and only if you're also running the right magic > perf record at the same time? Yes. It would be nice to capture the whole PMU state in trace points. There are use models for this where it can work better than sampling. But that would be a lot bigger project than this simple file, which is already quite useful with minimal effort. -Andi -- ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists