linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf stat: Change event enable code

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:	Wed, 9 Dec 2015 15:44:12 +0200
From:	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] perf stat: Change event enable code

On 08/12/15 15:53, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 09:29:51AM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>> On 07/12/15 23:09, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:06:39AM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
>>>> while testing ftrace:function event I noticed we create
>>>> stat counters as enabled (except for enable_on_exec couters).
>>>>
>>>> This way we count also filter setup and other config code
>>>> which might be crucial for some events.
>>>>
>>>> Posponing the events enable once everything is ready.
>>>>
>>>> The last patch is RFC as I wasn't sure there's some hidden
>>>> catch about perf_evlist__(enable|disable)_event functions
>>>> I missed.. Adrian?
> 
>>> They look the same, Adrian?
> 
>>> Applied the first 6, will give some more time to Adrian to chime in.
>  
>> Looks like there might already be a problem using evsel->threads instead of
>> evlist->threads with the logic relating to evsel->system_wide getting lost -
>> but that happened already in "perf evlist: Factor
>> perf_evlist__(enable|disable) functions".  Probably the threads should not
>> be propagated in that case, but it needs more investigation.  I will try to
>> look at it today.
> 
> Thanks! Is that covered by any 'perf test' entry? Do you think having
> some sort of Intel PT test to run on capable machines would be feasible?

There is "Test tracking with sched_switch".  There was an issue where 'perf
record' was working differently to the tests.  I will try to find where the
gaps are.  Seems I have run out of time again today though.

--
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/