linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] perf stat: Support --all-kernel and --all-user

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:00:52 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
        jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] perf stat: Support --all-kernel and --all-user

On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:46:36PM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/1/2019 10:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > I think it's useful. Makes it easy to do kernel/user break downs.
> > > > perf record should support the same.
> > > 
> > > Don't we have this already with:
> > > 
> > > [root@...co ~]# perf stat -e cycles:u,instructions:u,cycles:k,instructions:k -a -- sleep 1
> > 
> > This only works for simple cases. Try it for --topdown or multiple -M metrics.
> > 
> > -Andi
> > 
> 
> Hi Arnaldo, Jiri,
> 
> We think it should be very useful if --all-user / --all-kernel can be
> specified together, so that we can get a break down between user and kernel
> easily.
> 
> But yes, the patches for supporting this new semantics is much complicated
> than the patch which just follows original perf-record behavior. I fully
> understand this concern.
> 
> So if this new semantics can be accepted, that would be very good. But if
> you think the new semantics is too complicated, I'm also fine for posting a
> new patch which just follows the perf-record behavior.

I still need to think a bit more about this.. did you consider
other options like cloning of the perf_evlist/perf_evsel and
changing just the exclude* bits? might be event worse actualy ;-)

or maybe if we add modifier we could add extra events/groups
within the parser.. like:

  "{cycles,instructions}:A,{cache-misses,cache-references}:A,cycles:A"

but that might be still more complicated then what you did

also please add the perf record changes so we have same code
and logic for both if we are going to change it

jirka