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  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:   Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:31:28 +0200
From:   Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf, pt, coresight: AUX flags and VMX update

Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> writes:

> Em Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:39:43PM +0200, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>> On 20/02/17 17:18, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> > Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> writes:
>> > 
>> >> With the vmm_exclusive=0, PT seems to be much more usable on BDW now. This
>> >> patchset does three things:
>> >>  * adds a flag to PERF_RECORD_AUX, signalling that a transaction has gaps
>> >>    in it (due to VMX root mode kicking in),
>> > 
>> > In the above context, will something like this be fine?
>  
>> Looks fine to me.
>  
>> Acked-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
>> 
>> > From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
>> > Subject: [PATCH] perf tools: Handle partial AUX records and print a warning
>
>> > This patch decodes the 'partial' flag in AUX records and prints
>> > a warning to the user, so that they don't have to guess why their
>> > PT traces contain gaps (or missing altogether):
>
>> >> Warning:
>> >> AUX data had gaps in it 6 times out of 8!
>
> The above should be left for a more verbose mode?
>
>> >> Are you running a KVM guest in the background?
>
> The warning should be a bit more precise, as you said, tuning
> vmm_exclusive is key here, i.e.:
>
> "Are you running a KVM guest in the background with
> kvm_intel.vmm_exclusive=1?"

You'll still get gaps with vmm_exclusive=0 if you run perf record -a or
if you try to trace the actual kvm.

> And that we can even figure out, its just a matter of reading:
>
> [root@...et ~]# cat /sys/module/kvm_intel/parameters/vmm_exclusive
> Y
>
> I have tested after setting that using:
>
>  modprobe kvm_intel vmm_exclusive=n
>
> And I was able to get Intel PT records from a workload.
>
> So perhaps we can get this patch in, which improves the situation, and
> then, on top of it do these extra checks and give proper hints, ok?

Sure.

Thanks,
--
Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists