linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/6] perf core: Read from overwrite ring 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:51:31 +0800
From:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
CC:	<peterz@...radead.org>, <ast@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>, <pi3orama@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] perf core: Read from overwrite ring buffer



On 2016/1/20 10:20, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 09:37:42AM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>
>> On 2016/1/20 1:42, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 11:16:44AM +0000, Wang Nan wrote:
>>>> This patchset introduces two methods to support reading from overwrite.
>>>>
>>>>   1) Tailsize: write the size of an event at the end of it
>>>>   2) Backward writing: write the ring buffer from the end of it to the
>>>>      beginning.
>>> what happend with your other idea of moving the whole header to the end?
>>> That felt better than either of these options.
>> I'll try it today. However, putting all of the three together is
>> not as easy as this patchset.
> I'm missing something. Why all three in one set?

Can't implement all three in one, but implement two of them make
benchmarking simpler :)

Here comes some numbers.

I attach a target program at the end of this mail. It calls
close(-1) for 3000000 times, and use gettimeofday to check
how many us it takes.

Following cases are tested:


  BASE    : ./a.out
  RAWPERF : ./perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:* ./a.out
  WRTBKWRD: ./perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:* ./a.out
  TAILSIZE: ./perf record --no-has-write-backward -o /dev/null -e 
raw_syscalls:*/overwrite/ ./a.out
  RAWOVWRT: ./perf record --no-has-write-backward --no-has-tailsize -o 
/dev/null -e raw_syscalls:*/overwrite/ ./a.out

With this script:

func() {
         for x in `seq 1 100` ; do $1; done | tee data_$2
}

func ./a.out base
func "./perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:* ./a.out" rawperf
func "./perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:*/overwrite/ ./a.out" 
wrtbkwrd
func "./perf record -o /dev/null --no-has-write-backward -e 
raw_syscalls:*/overwrite/ ./a.out" tailsize
func "./perf record -o /dev/null --no-has-write-backward 
--no-has-tailsize -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:*/overwrite/ ./a.out" 
rawovwrt

Result:

             MEAN           STDVAR
BASE    :  879870.81      11913.13
RAWPERF : 2603854.7      706658.4
WRTBKWRD: 2313301.220      6727.957
TAILSIZE: 2383051.860      5248.061
RAWOVWRT: 2315273.180      5221.025

So it seems backward writing methods is good enough. We don't need to 
consider
tailsize method.

Code for this benchmark can be found from:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pi3orama/linux.git/ 
perf/overwrite-benchmark

Thank you.

-------- Test program ----------
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
         int i;
         struct timeval tv1, tv2;
         long long us1, us2;

         gettimeofday(&tv1, NULL);
         for (i = 0; i < 1000 * 1000 * 3; i++) {
                 close(-1);
         }
         gettimeofday(&tv2, NULL);

         us1 = tv1.tv_sec * 1000000 + tv1.tv_usec;
         us2 = tv2.tv_sec * 1000000 + tv2.tv_usec;
         printf("%ld\n", us2 - us1);

         return 0;
}