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: <20161124185849.GJ3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:58:49 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] perf/x86: Introduce PERF_RECORD_OVERHEAD

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 10:28:22AM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 02:50:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra 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?
> 
> It would be good to always have at least one line overhead summary in the
> default output. So if someone sends you a perf report output file and it has
> suspicious overhead can investigate.

Sure, but that's a tool thing, totally irrelevant for the kernel.