linux-kernel - Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration

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]

Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 14:38:38 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Raslan, KarimAllah" <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "joao.m.martins@...cle.com" <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
        "konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "kernellwp@...il.com" <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        "mtosatti@...hat.com" <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: cputime takes cstate into consideration

On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 07:00:08PM -0700, Ankur Arora wrote:
> On 2019-06-26 12:23 p.m., Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019, Raslan, KarimAllah wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2019-06-26 at 10:54 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > > There were some ideas that Ankur (CC-ed) mentioned to me of using the perf
> > > > counters (in the host) to sample the guest and construct a better
> > > > accounting idea of what the guest does. That way the dashboard
> > > > from the host would not show 100% CPU utilization.
> > > 
> > > You can either use the UNHALTED cycles perf-counter or you can use MPERF/APERF
> > > MSRs for that. (sorry I got distracted and forgot to send the patch)
> > 
> > Sure, but then you conflict with the other people who fight tooth and nail
> > over every single performance counter.
> How about using Intel PT PwrEvt extensions? This should allow us to
> precisely track idle residency via just MWAIT and TSC packets. Should
> be pretty cheap too. It's post Cascade Lake though.

That would fully claim PT just for this stupid accounting thing and be
completely Intel specific.

Just stop this madness already.