linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 01/14] perf/x86: Introduce PERF_RECORD

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: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07750CA2C2F@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:39:26 +0000
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com" 
        <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "namhyung@...nel.org" <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        "jolsa@...nel.org" <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        "wangnan0@...wei.com" <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/14] perf/x86: Introduce PERF_RECORD_OVERHEAD



> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 01:56:51PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 01:45:28PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > > I think we should make this optional/configurable like the rest
> > > > > of the aux events, like below..
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The overhead logging only happens when event is going to be
> > > > disabled or the task is scheduling out. It should not be much and
> expensive.
> > > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > > Should we make it configurable?
> > >
> > > Is there a downside to having it optional?
> >
> > NO. There will be no overhead information dumped into perf.data. Just
> > like current implementation.
> 
> old perf tools will get unexpected events if it's not optional
>

That's expected because a new record type is introduced.
 
OK, I will make it configurable. Anyway, there is nothing to lose. :)

Thanks,
Kan

> [root@...-x3650m4-01 perf]# ./perf c2c record -ag ^C[ perf record: Woken
> up 1 times to write data ]
> Warning:
> Found 1 unknown events!
> 
> Is this an older tool processing a perf.data file generated by a more recent
> tool?
> 
> If that is not the case, consider reporting to linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org.
> 
> [ perf record: Captured and wrote 2.333 MB perf.data (9370 samples) ]
> 
> 
> jirka