linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 4/6] perf, x86: handle multiple records in PEBS buffer

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2015 20:25:45 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"acme@...radead.org" <acme@...radead.org>,
	"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 4/6] perf, x86: handle multiple records in PEBS buffer

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 08:20:37PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 04:44:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:19:58PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > 
> > > > But that brings us to patch 1 of this series, how is that correct in the face of
> > > > this? There is an arbitrary delay (A->B) added to the period.
> > > > And the Changelog of course never did bother to make that clear.
> 
> That's how perf and other profilers always behaved. The PMI
> is not part of the period. The automatic PEBS reload is not in any way
> different. It's much faster than a PMI, but it's also not zero cost.
> 
> This is not a gap in measurement though -- there is no other code
> running during that time on that CPU. It's simply overhead from the
> measurement mechanism.
> 
> > > 
> > > OK. I will update the changelog for patch 1 as below.
> > > ---
> > > When a fixed period is specified, this patch make perf use the PEBS
> > > auto reload mechanism. This makes normal profiling faster, because
> > > it avoids one costly MSR write in the PMI handler.
> > 
> > > However, the reset value will be loaded by hardware assist. There is 
> > > a little bit delay compared to previous non-auto-reload mechanism.
> > > The delay is arbitrary but very small.
> > 
> > What is very small? And doesn't that mean its significant at exactly the
> > point this patch series is aimed at, namely very short period.
> 
> The assist cost is 400-800 cycles, assuming common cases with everything
> cached. The minimum period the patch currently uses is 10000. In that
> extreme case it can be ~10% if cycles are used.

Thanks, please include all this information.
--
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/