linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Share events between metrics

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: <20200507214652.GC3538@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 14:46:52 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...omium.org>,
        Kajol Jain <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-perf-users <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Share events between metrics

> > - without this change events within a metric may get scheduled
> >   together, after they may appear as part of a larger group and be
> >   multiplexed at different times, lowering accuracy - however, less
> >   multiplexing may compensate for this.
> 
> I agree the heuristic in this patch set is naive and would welcome to
> improve it from your toplev experience. I think this change is
> progress on TopDownL1 - would you agree?

TopdownL1 in non SMT mode should always fit. Inside a group
deduping always makes sense. 

The problem is SMT mode where it doesn't fit. toplev tries
to group each node and each level together.

> 
> I'm wondering if what is needed are flags to control behavior. For
> example, avoiding the use of groups altogether. For TopDownL1 I see.

Yes the current situation isn't great.

For Topdown your patch clearly is an improvement, I'm not sure
it's for everything though.

Probably the advanced heuristics are only useful for a few
formulas, most are very simple. So maybe it's ok. I guess
would need some testing over the existing formulas.


-Andi