[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704090647.dbvrpnah6d47txdx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 11:06:47 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
"Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, acme@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, kan.liang@...el.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
Robert O'Callahan <robert@...llahan.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/core: generate overflow signal when samples are
dropped (WAS: Re: [REGRESSION] perf/core: PMU interrupts dropped if we
entered the kernel in the "skid" region)
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 10:12:33AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> > It still seems wrong to make up data, though.
>
> So what we have here is a hardware quirk: we asked for user-space samples, but
> didn't get them and we cannot expose the kernel-internal address.
>
> The question is, how do we handle the hardware quirk. Since we cannot fix the
> hardware on existing systems there's really just two choices:
>
> - Lose the sample (and signal it as a lost sample)
>
> - Keep the sample but change the sensitive kernel-internal address to something
> that is not sensitive: 0 or -1 works, but we could perhaps also return a
> well-known user-space address such as the vDSO syscall trampoline or such?
>
> there's no other option really.
>
> I'd lean towards Vince's take: losing samples is more surprising than getting the
> occasional sample with some sanitized data in it.
>
> If we make the artificial data still a meaningful user-space address, related to
> kernel entries, then it might even be a bonus, as users would learn to recognize
> it as: 'oh, skid artifact, I know about that'.
So while we could easily fake SAMPLE_IP to do as you suggest, other
entries might be much harder to fake. That said, I have no problems with
just 0 stuffing them.
The only real problem is determining how much to stuff I suppose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists