linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/intel: Remove Perfmon-v4 counter

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]

Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 2020 09:38:57 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, luwei.kang@...el.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Wang, Wei W" <wei.w.wang@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/intel: Remove Perfmon-v4 counter_freezing support

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 12:52:04PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> What is implemented is Freeze-on-Overflow, yet it is described as Freeze-on-PMI.
> That, in itself, is a problem. I agree with you on that point.

Exactly.

> However, there are use cases for both modes.
> 
> I can sample on event A and count on B, C and when A overflows, I want
> to snapshot B, C.
> For that I want B, C at the moment of the overflow, not at the moment
> the PMI is delivered. Thus, youd
> would want the Freeze-on-overflow behavior. You can collect in this
> mode with the perf tool,
> IIRC: perf record -e '{cycles,instructions,branches:S}' ....

Right, but we never supported that. Also, in that case the group must
then be fully exlusive so as not to mess with other groups. A better
solution might be an extention to Adaptive PEBS.

> The other usage model is that of the replay-debugger (rr) which you are alluding
> to, which needs precise count of an event including during the skid
> window. For that, you need
> Freeze-on-PMI (delivered). Note that this tool likely only cares about
> user level occurrences of events.

Correct, RR only cares about user-only counting.

> As for counter independence, I am not sure it holds in all cases. If
> the events are setup for user+kernel

This is true; however if it were an actual Freeze-on-PMI we could
actually do u+k independence correctly too.


Anyway, as it stands I think the whole counter_freezing thing is a
trainwreck and it needs to go.