linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] perf/core: use rb trees for pinned/flexible groups

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: <87o9r6z9lt.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:39:42 +0300
From:   Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] perf/core: use rb trees for pinned/flexible groups

Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com> writes:

>>>>> bool event_less(left, right)
>>>>> {
>>>>>   if (left->cpu < right->cpu)
>>>>>     return true;
>>>>>
>>>>>   if (left->cpu > right_cpu)
>>>>>     return false;
>>>>>
>>>>>   if (left->vtime < right->vtime)
>>>>>     return true;
>>>>>
>>>>>   return false;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> insert_group(group, event, tail)
>>>>> {
>>>>>   if (tail)
>>>>>     event->vtime = ++group->vtime;
>>>>>
>>>>>   tree_insert(&group->root, event);
>>>>> }

[ ... ]

> 2. implementing special _less() function and rotation by re-inserting
>    group with incremented index;
>

[ ... ]

> Now I figured that not all indexed events are always located under 
> the root with the same cpu, and it depends on the order of insertion
> e.g. with insertion order 01,02,03,14,15,16 we get this:
>
>      02
>     /  \
>    01  14
>       /  \
>      03  15
>            \
>            16

How did you arrive at this? Seeing the actual code would help, because
this is not the ordering we're looking for. With Peter's earlier example
(quoted above) it shouldn't look like this.

Regards,
--
Alex