linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] perf/core: Set event shadow time for inactive events too

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: <CAM9d7cizkX_oOj2UCWnbqS9P+VDW8NLxC7BE23xa4moJQS_+vg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Dec 2021 21:52:16 -0800
From:   Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     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>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf/core: Set event shadow time for inactive events too

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:22 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2021 at 02:48:43PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > While commit f79256532682 ("perf/core: fix userpage->time_enabled of
> > inactive events") fixed this problem for user rdpmc usage,
>
> You're referring to 'this problem' before actually describing a problem :-(

Well, it's a problem of reporting incorrect 'enabled' time.
I'm sorry if it was not clear.

>
> Also, you now have me looking at that commit again, and I'm still hating
> it. Also, I'm again struggling to make sense of it; all except the very
> last hunk that is.
>
> So the whole, full-fat, mmap self-monitor thing looks like:
>
>
>         u32 seq, time_mult, time_shift, index, width = 64;
>         u64 count, enabled, running;
>         u64 cyc, time_offset, time_cycles = 0, time_mask = ~0ULL;
>         u64 quot, rem, delta;
>         s64 pmc = 0;
>
>         do {
>                 seq = pc->lock;
>                 barrier();
>
>                 enabled = pc->time_enabled;
>                 running = pc->time_running;
>
>                 if (pc->cap_user_time && enabled != running) {
>                         cyc = rdtsc();
>                         time_offset = pc->time_offset;
>                         time_mult   = pc->time_mult;
>                         time_shift  = pc->time_shift;
>                 }
>
>                 if (pc->cap_user_time_short) {
>                         time_cycles = pc->time_cycles;
>                         time_mask   = pc->time_mask;
>                 }
>
>                 index = pc->index;
>                 count = pc->offset;
>                 if (pc->cap_user_rdpmc && index) {
>                         width = pc->pmc_width;
>                         pmc = rdpmc(index - 1);
>                 }
>
>                 barrier();
>         } while (pc->lock != seq);
>
>         if (width < 64) {
>                 pmc <<= 64 - width;
>                 pmc >>= 64 - width;
>         }
>         count += pmc;
>
>         cyc = time_cycles + ((cyc - time_cycles) & time_mask);
>
>         quot = (cyc >> time_shift);
>         rem = cyc & ((1ULL < time_shift) - 1);
>         delta = time_offset + quot * time_mult +
>                 ((rem * time_mult) >> time_shift);
>
>         enabled += delta;
>         if (index)
>                 running += delta;
>
>         quot = count / running;
>         rem  = count % running;
>         count = quot * enabled + (rem * enabled) / running;
>
>
> Now, the thing that sticks out to me is that 'enabled' is
> unconditionally advanced. It *always* runs.
>
> So how can not updating ->time_enabled when the counter is INACTIVE due
> to rotation (which causes ->index == 0), cause enabled to not be
> up-to-date?

Hmm.. I don't get it.  In my understanding, that's the whole point
of the enabled time - tracking time it was not active due to the
multiplexing (rotation).  So that users might want to scale the
count based on the ratio of running vs enabled.

Do I miss something?

Thanks,
Namhyung


>
> Can we please figure that out so I can go revert all but the last hunk
> of that patch?