linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] sched/debug: Add new tracepoint to track cpu

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: <20200908152214.d7sjawnmnkytv7vk@e107158-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Sep 2020 16:22:15 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To:     Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        vincent.donnefort@....com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/debug: Add new tracepoint to track cpu_capacity

On 09/08/20 09:19, Phil Auld wrote:
> Hi Quais,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:02:24PM +0100 Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On 09/02/20 09:54, Phil Auld wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I think this decoupling is not necessary. The natural place for those
> > > > scheduler trace_event based on trace_points extension files is
> > > > kernel/sched/ and here the internal sched.h can just be included.
> > > > 
> > > > If someone really wants to build this as an out-of-tree module there is
> > > > an easy way to make kernel/sched/sched.h visible.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > It's not so much that we really _want_ to do this in an external module.
> > > But we aren't adding more trace events and my (limited) knowledge of
> > > BPF let me to the conclusion that its raw tracepoint functionality
> > > requires full events.  I didn't see any other way to do it.
> > 
> > I did have a patch that allowed that. It might be worth trying to upstream it.
> > It just required a new macro which could be problematic.
> > 
> > https://github.com/qais-yousef/linux/commit/fb9fea29edb8af327e6b2bf3bc41469a8e66df8b
> > 
> > With the above I could attach using bpf::RAW_TRACEPOINT mechanism.
> >
> 
> Yeah, that could work. I meant there was no way to do it with what was there :)
> 
> In our initial attempts at using BPF to get at nr_running (which I was not
> involved in and don't have all the details...) there were issues being able to
> keep up and losing events.  That may have been an implementation issue, but
> using the module and trace-cmd doesn't have that problem. Hopefully you don't
> see that using RAW_TRACEPOINTs.

I haven't played with that since then tbh. I use BPF every now and then, but
rather simplistically. So if I encoutnered such a problem I wouldn't have
noticed.

> Fwiw, I don't think these little helper routines are all that hard to maintain.
> If something changes in those fields, which seems moderately unlikely at least
> for many of them, the compiler will complain.
> 
> And I agree with you about preferring to use the public headers for the module.
> I think we can work around it though, if needed.

+1

Cheers

--
Qais Yousef