linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes

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:   Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:33:15 +0000
From:   "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To:     David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:     Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Shivappa, Vikas" <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
        "Anvin, H Peter" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/12] Cqm2: Intel Cache quality monitoring fixes

>> Nice to have:
>> 1)      Readout using "perf(1)" [subset of modes that make sense ... tying monitoring
>> to resctrl file system will make most command line usage of perf(1) close to impossible.
>
>
> We discussed this offline and I still disagree that it is close to
> impossible to use perf and perf_event_open. In fact, I think it's very
> simple :

Maybe s/most/many/ ?

The issue here is that we are going to define which tasks and cpus are being
monitored *outside* of the perf command.  So usage like:

# perf stat -I 1000 -e intel_cqm/llc_occupancy {command}

are completely out of scope ... we aren't planning to change the perf(1)
command to know about creating a CQM monitor group, assigning the
PID of {command} to it, and then report on llc_occupancy.

So perf(1) usage is only going to support modes where it attaches to some
monitor group that was previously established.  The "-C 2" option to monitor
CPU 2 is certainly plausible ... assuming you set up a monitor group to track
what is happening on CPU 2 ... I just don't know how perf(1) would know the
name of that group.

Vikas is pushing for "-R rdtgroup" ... though our offline discussions included
overloading "-g" and have perf(1) pick appropriately from cgroups or rdtgroups
depending on event type.

-Tony