linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Fix installing cgroup event into cpu

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CALPjY3nNy0Lp14uKob_FytTHaMajRAHsob7=hPaUx6LPFQ6MBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:59:20 +0800
From:   Lin Xiulei <linxiulei@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
        yang_oliver@...mail.com, jinli.zjl@...baba-inc.com,
        "leilei.lin" <leilei.lin@...baba-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Fix installing cgroup event into cpu

2018-01-24 17:46 GMT+08:00 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 05:19:34PM +0800, Lin Xiulei wrote:
>> Sure, and I consider this "OK" works for "What goes wrong if we leave
>> it set?". : )
>
> It would be good if you inspect the code for the case of leaving
> cpuctx->cgrp set with no cgroup events left -- AND -- put a blurb about
> what you found in your new Changelog.
>


I have some test cases for this issue, I don't know if it's good to
put those in changelog


reproduction as below

Step 1

Create program for measuring, write below to the file d.py

```
while True:
    sumup = 0
    for i in range(10000000):
        sumup += i
```

Step 2

Create cgroup path and run relative program

```
mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event/test1
mkdir /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event/test2

python d.py &
echo $! > /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event/test1/cgroup.procs

python d.py &
echo $! > /sys/fs/cgroup/perf_event/test2/cgroup.procs
```

Step 3

```
perf stat -e cycles -G test1 -e cycles -G test2  -a sleep 1
```

You would see output like below

```

 Performance counter stats for 'system wide':

     2,161,022,123      cycles                    test1
       138,626,073      cycles                    test2

       1.001858328 seconds time elapsed
```

The result of test2 is much less than test1, which happens commonly.
Just because of what I mentioned above that a second event couldn't be
activated immediately, that cases some loss

> I suspect it works out and something like perf_cgroup_switch() will fix
> things up for us later, but double check and test.

exactly, the case above wouldn't have any result if no
perf_cgroup_switch()  happened.