| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3a6b082e-7906-9df1-28b9-c7639127e8a7@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:05:55 -0400
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: acme@...hat.com, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 07/14] perf/x86/intel: Generic support for hardware
TopDown metrics
On 7/21/2020 5:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:05:47AM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> @@ -1031,6 +1034,35 @@ int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int n, int *assign)
>> return unsched ? -EINVAL : 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int add_nr_metric_event(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
>> + struct perf_event *event,
>> + int *max_count, bool sibling)
>> +{
>> + /* The TopDown metrics events cannot be shared. */
>> + if (is_metric_event(event) &&
>> + (++cpuc->n_metric_event > INTEL_TD_METRIC_NUM)) {
>> + cpuc->n_metric_event--;
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Take the accepted metrics events into account for leader event.
>> + */
>> + if (!sibling)
>> + *max_count += cpuc->n_metric_event;
>> + else if (is_metric_event(event))
>> + (*max_count)++;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void del_nr_metric_event(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
>> + struct perf_event *event)
>> +{
>> + if (is_metric_event(event))
>> + cpuc->n_metric_event--;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * dogrp: true if must collect siblings events (group)
>> * returns total number of events and error code
>> @@ -1066,6 +1098,10 @@ static int collect_events(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *leader,
>> cpuc->pebs_output = is_pebs_pt(leader) + 1;
>> }
>>
>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.perf_metrics &&
>> + add_nr_metric_event(cpuc, leader, &max_count, false))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> if (is_x86_event(leader)) {
>> if (n >= max_count)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -1082,6 +1118,10 @@ static int collect_events(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *leader,
>> event->state <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF)
>> continue;
>>
>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.perf_metrics &&
>> + add_nr_metric_event(cpuc, event, &max_count, true))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> if (n >= max_count)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>
> Something like so perhaps ?
>
> --- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
> @@ -1035,24 +1035,14 @@ int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_ev
> }
>
> static int add_nr_metric_event(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
> - struct perf_event *event,
> - int *max_count, bool sibling)
> + struct perf_event *event)
> {
> - /* The TopDown metrics events cannot be shared. */
> - if (is_metric_event(event) &&
> - (++cpuc->n_metric_event > INTEL_TD_METRIC_NUM)) {
> - cpuc->n_metric_event--;
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (is_metric_event(event)) {
> + if (cpuc->n_metric == INTEL_TD_METRIC_NUM)
> + return -EINVAL;
> + cpuc->n_metric++;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * Take the accepted metrics events into account for leader event.
> - */
> - if (!sibling)
> - *max_count += cpuc->n_metric_event;
> - else if (is_metric_event(event))
> - (*max_count)++;
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1060,7 +1050,24 @@ static void del_nr_metric_event(struct c
> struct perf_event *event)
> {
> if (is_metric_event(event))
> - cpuc->n_metric_event--;
> + cpuc->n_metric--;
> +}
> +
> +static int collect_event(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, struct perf_event *event,
> + int max_count, int n)
> +{
> +
> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.perf_metrics && add_nr_metric_event(cpuc, event))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (n >= max_count + cpuc->n_metric)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + cpuc->event_list[n] = event;
> + if (is_counter_pair(&event->hw))
> + cpuc->n_pair++;
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1098,37 +1105,20 @@ static int collect_events(struct cpu_hw_
> cpuc->pebs_output = is_pebs_pt(leader) + 1;
> }
>
> - if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.perf_metrics &&
> - add_nr_metric_event(cpuc, leader, &max_count, false))
> + if (is_x86_event(leader) && collect_event(cpuc, leader, max_count, n))
> return -EINVAL;
> + n++;
If a leader is not an x86 event, n will be mistakenly increased.
But is it possible that a leader is not an x86 event here?
Seems impossible for now. A SW event cannot be a leader for a mix group.
We don't allow the core PMU and the perf_invalid_context PMU in the same
group.
If so, I think it deserves a comment, in case the situation changes
later, e.g.,
+ if (is_x86_event(leader) && collect_event(cpuc, leader, max_count, n))
return -EINVAL;
+ /*
+ * Currently, for a x86 core event group, the leader must be a
+ * x86 core event. A SW event cannot be a leader for a mix
+ * group. We don't allow the core PMU and the perf_invalid_contex +
* PMU in the same group.
+ */
+ n++;
Thanks,
Kan
>
> - if (is_x86_event(leader)) {
> - if (n >= max_count)
> - return -EINVAL;
> - cpuc->event_list[n] = leader;
> - n++;
> - if (is_counter_pair(&leader->hw))
> - cpuc->n_pair++;
> - }
> if (!dogrp)
> return n;
>
> for_each_sibling_event(event, leader) {
> - if (!is_x86_event(event) ||
> - event->state <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF)
> + if (!is_x86_event(event) || event->state <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_OFF)
> continue;
>
> - if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.perf_metrics &&
> - add_nr_metric_event(cpuc, event, &max_count, true))
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> - if (n >= max_count)
> + if (collect_event(cpuc, event, max_count, n))
> return -EINVAL;
> -
> - cpuc->event_list[n] = event;
> n++;
> - if (is_counter_pair(&event->hw))
> - cpuc->n_pair++;
> }
> return n;
> }
> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> @@ -313,7 +313,7 @@ struct cpu_hw_events {
> * Perf Metrics
> */
> /* number of accepted metrics events */
> - int n_metric_event;
> + int n_metric;
>
> /*
> * AMD specific bits
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists