linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] perf affinity: Add infrastructure to save/restore affinity

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: <20191023171904.ft735ormkro6tahp@two.firstfloor.org>
Date:   Wed, 23 Oct 2019 10:19:04 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, acme@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] perf affinity: Add infrastructure to save/restore
 affinity

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:16:13PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> 
> On 23.10.2019 17:52, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 04:30:49PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 06:02:35AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 11:59:11AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:51:57AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> SNIP
> >>>>
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/affinity.h b/tools/perf/util/affinity.h
> >>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>> index 000000000000..e56148607e33
> >>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/affinity.h
> >>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> >>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> >>>>> +#ifndef AFFINITY_H
> >>>>> +#define AFFINITY_H 1
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +struct affinity {
> >>>>> +	unsigned char *orig_cpus;
> >>>>> +	unsigned char *sched_cpus;
> >>>>
> >>>> why not use cpu_set_t directly?
> >>>
> >>> Because it's too small in glibc (only 1024 CPUs) and perf already 
> >>> supports more.
> >>
> >> nice, we're using it all over the place.. how about using bitmap_alloc?
> > 
> > Okay.
> > 
> > The other places is mainly perf record from Alexey's recent affinity changes.
> > These probably need to be fixed.
> > 
> > +Alexey
> 
> Despite the issue indeed looks generic for stat and record modes,
> have you already observed record startup overhead somewhere in your setups?
> I would, first, prefer to reproduce the overhead, to have stable use case 
> for evaluation and then, possibly, improvement.

What I meant the cpu_set usages you added in 

commit 9d2ed64587c045304efe8872b0258c30803d370c
Author: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 22 20:47:43 2019 +0300

    perf record: Allocate affinity masks

need to be fixed to allocate dynamically, or at least use MAX_NR_CPUs to
support systems with >1024CPUs. That's an independent functionality
problem.

I haven't seen any large enough perf record usage to run
into the IPI problems for record.

-Andi