linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Clang feature updates for v5.14-rc1

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: <CAKwvOd=-qdp6xcuVb-fSni6X-0UuJ6GM5+TJdWSkAfvNmqfZ+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jul 2021 10:26:40 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Bill Wendling <morbo@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bill Wendling <wcw@...gle.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        Fangrui Song <maskray@...gle.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jarmo Tiitto <jarmo.tiitto@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Clang feature updates for v5.14-rc1

On Fri, Jul 2, 2021 at 5:57 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2021 at 05:46:46AM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 2:04 PM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 1:44 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And it causes the kernel to be bigger and run slower.
> > > >
> > > > Right -- that's expected. It's not designed to be the final kernel
> > > > someone uses. :)
> > >
> > > Well, from what I've seen, you actually want to run real loads in
> > > production environments for PGO to actually be anything but a bogus
> > > "performance benchmarks only" kind of thing.
> > >
> > The reason we use PGO in this way is because we _cannot_ release a
> > kernel into production that hasn't had PGO applied to it. The
> > performance of a non-PGO'ed kernel is a non-starter for rollout. We
> > try our best to replicate this environment for the benchmarks, which
> > is the only sane way to do this. I can't imagine that we're the only
> > ones who run up against this chicken-and-egg problem.
> >
> > For why we don't use sampling, PGO gives a better performance boost
> > from an instrumented kernel rather than a sampled profile. I'll work
> > on getting statistics to show this.
>
> I've asked this before; *what* is missing from LBR samples that's
> reponsible for the performance gap?

Are we able to collect LBR samples from __init code?  I can imagine
trying to launch perf from init/pid 1, but I suspect at that point
it's way too late.

Increasingly, boot times of hosts (and virtualized guests) are
becoming important to us, both in the datacenters and on mobile.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers