linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] perf: Sharing PMU counters across compatible events

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]

Message-ID: <20191105201623.GG3079@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 5 Nov 2019 21:16:23 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] perf: Sharing PMU counters across compatible events

On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 05:11:08PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:

> > I think we can use one of the event as master. We need to be careful when
> > the master event is removed, but it should be doable. Let me try. 
> 
> Actually, there is a bigger issue when we use one event as the master: what
> shall we do if the master event is not running? Say it is an cgroup event, 
> and the cgroup is not running on this cpu. An extra master (and all these
> array hacks) help us get O(1) complexity in such scenario. 
> 
> Do you have suggestions on how to solve this problem? Maybe we can keep the 
> extra master, and try get rid of the double alloc? 

Right, you have to consider scope when sharing. The master should be the
largest scope event and any slaves should be complete subsets.

Without much thought this seems a fairly straight forward constraint;
that is, given cgroups I'm not immediately seeing how we can violate
that.

Basically, pick the cgroup event nearest to the root as the master.
We have to have logic to re-elect the master anyway for deletion, so
changing it on add shouldn't be different.

(obviously the root-cgroup is cpu-wide and always on, and if you have
two events from disjoint subtrees they have no overlap, so it doesn't
make sense to share anyway)