linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

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: <20170407172024.r66fkp4xkux5blxi@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2017 19:20:24 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, acme@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 09:48:34AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 05:20:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 06:47:43PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> > > Perf already has support for disassembling the branch instruction
> > > and using the branch type for filtering. The patch just records
> > > the branch type in perf_branch_entry.
> > > 
> > > Before recording, the patch converts the x86 branch classification
> > > to common branch classification and compute for checking if the
> > > branches cross 4K or 2MB areas. It's an approximate computing for
> > > crossing 4K page or 2MB page.
> > 
> > The changelog is completely empty of rationale. Why do we care?
> > 
> > Not having the binary is a very bad reason; you can't do much of
> > anything if that's missing.
> 
> It's a somewhat common situation with partially JITed code, if you
> don't have an agent. You can still do a lot of useful things.

Like what? How can you say anything about code you don't have?

> We found it useful to have this extra information during workload
> analysis. Forward conditionals and page crossing jumps
> are indications of frontend problems.

But you already have the exact same information in {to,from}, why would
you need to repackage information already contained?