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]

Date:   Thu, 9 Dec 2021 09:21:29 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.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

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:52:16PM -0800, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 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.

Correct, and AFAICT that works as advertised.

> Do I miss something?

Where do we actually need the crap that is commit f79256532682 ?