linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/core: Share an event with multiple cgroups

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Apr 2021 06:19:19 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Ian Rogers" <irogers@...gle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/core: Share an event with multiple cgroups



> On Mar 30, 2021, at 8:11 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 3:33 PM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 29, 2021, at 4:33 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 2:17 AM Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 23, 2021, at 9:21 AM, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> As we can run many jobs (in container) on a big machine, we want to
>>>>> measure each job's performance during the run.  To do that, the
>>>>> perf_event can be associated to a cgroup to measure it only.
>>>>> 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>>>> +     return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>> 
>>>> Could you please explain why we need this logic in can_attach?
>>> 
>>> IIUC the ss->attach() is called after a task's cgroup membership
>>> is changed.  But we want to collect the performance numbers for
>>> the old cgroup just before the change.  As the logic merely checks
>>> the current task's cgroup, it should be done in the can_attach()
>>> which is called before the cgroup change.
>> 
>> Thanks for the explanations.
>> 
>> Overall, I really like the core idea, especially that the overhead on
>> context switch is bounded (by the depth of cgroup tree).
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>> 
>> Is it possible to make PERF_EVENT_IOC_ATTACH_CGROUP more flexible?
>> Specifically, if we can have
>> 
>>  PERF_EVENT_IOC_ADD_CGROUP     add a cgroup to the list
>>  PERF_EVENT_IOC_EL_CGROUP      delete a cgroup from the list
>> 
>> we can probably share these events among multiple processes, and
>> these processes don't need to know others' cgroup list. I think
>> this will be useful for users to build customized monitoring in
>> its own container.
>> 
>> Does this make sense?
> 
> Maybe we can add ADD/DEL interface for more flexible monitoring
> but I'm not sure which use cases it'll be used actually.
> 
> For your multi-process sharing case, the original events' file
> descriptors should be shared first.  

Yes, we will need some other work to make the ADD/DEL interface 
work properly. Let's worry about that later. 

For both patches:

Acked-by: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>

Thanks,
Song

[...]