| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAM9d7ch5OY-AXM075aoZ0VwX3WAaui2c0DXNkKryJpVXO93MOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2022 09:42:51 -0700
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Alexey Bayduraev <alexey.v.bayduraev@...ux.intel.com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 22/23] perf tools: Allow system-wide events to keep
their own CPUs
On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 9:11 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On 13/05/22 18:46, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/13/2022 11:21 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> On 13/05/22 17:12, Liang, Kan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 5/13/2022 12:48 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >>>> On 12/05/22 21:53, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 3:35 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 12/05/22 08:27, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 5:27 AM Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently, user_requested_cpus supplants system-wide CPUs when the evlist
> >>>>>>>> has_user_cpus. Change that so that system-wide events retain their own
> >>>>>>>> CPUs and they are added to all_cpus.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Acked-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> tools/lib/perf/evlist.c | 11 +++++------
> >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c b/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> >>>>>>>> index 1c801f8da44f..9a6801b53274 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/tools/lib/perf/evlist.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -40,12 +40,11 @@ static void __perf_evlist__propagate_maps(struct perf_evlist *evlist,
> >>>>>>>> * We already have cpus for evsel (via PMU sysfs) so
> >>>>>>>> * keep it, if there's no target cpu list defined.
> >>>>>>>> */
> >>>>>>>> - if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) {
> >>>>>>>> - perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> >>>>>>>> - evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->user_requested_cpus);
> >>>>>>>> - } else if (!evsel->system_wide &&
> >>>>>>>> - !evsel->requires_cpu &&
> >>>>>>>> - perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) {
> >>>>>>>> + if (!evsel->own_cpus ||
> >>>>>>>> + (!evsel->system_wide && evlist->has_user_cpus) ||
> >>>>>>>> + (!evsel->system_wide &&
> >>>>>>>> + !evsel->requires_cpu &&
> >>>>>>>> + perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus))) {
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is getting hard to understand. IIUC this propagation basically
> >>>>>>> sets user requested cpus to evsel unless it has its own cpus, right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I put the conditional logic altogether because that is kernel style but
> >>>>>> it does make it practically unreadable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we start with the original logic:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus) {
> >>>>>> perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> >>>>>> evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->user_requested_cpus);
> >>>>>> } else if (!evsel->system_wide && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) {
> >>>>>> perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> >>>>>> evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evlist->user_requested_cpus);
> >>>>>> } else if (evsel->cpus != evsel->own_cpus) {
> >>>>>> perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> >>>>>> evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(evsel->own_cpus);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then make it more readable, i.e. same functionality
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> struct perf_cpu_map *cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus || evlist->has_user_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (!evsel->system_wide && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus))
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (evsel->cpus != cpus) {
> >>>>>> perf_cpu_map__put(evsel->cpus);
> >>>>>> evsel->cpus = perf_cpu_map__get(cpus);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then separate out the conditions, i.e. still same functionality
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evlist->has_user_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evsel->system_wide)
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) /* per-thread */
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then add the new requires_cpu flag:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evlist->has_user_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evsel->system_wide)
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>> - else if (perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) /* per-thread */
> >>>>>> + else if (!evsel->requres_cpu && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) /* per-thread */
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Then make system_wide keep own_cpus even if has_user_cpus:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> + else if (evsel->system_wide)
> >>>>>> + cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evlist->has_user_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> - else if (evsel->system_wide)
> >>>>>> - cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (!evsel->requres_cpu && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) /* per-thread */
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which leaves:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evsel->system_wide)
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (evlist->has_user_cpus)
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else if (!evsel->requres_cpu && perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus)) /* per-thread */
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And putting it back together:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if (!evsel->own_cpus ||
> >>>>>> (!evsel->system_wide && evlist->has_user_cpus) ||
> >>>>>> (!evsel->system_wide &&
> >>>>>> !evsel->requires_cpu &&
> >>>>>> perf_cpu_map__empty(evlist->user_requested_cpus))) {
> >>>>>> cpus = evlist->user_requested_cpus;
> >>>>>> else
> >>>>>> cpus = evsel->own_cpus;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps I shouldn't put it together?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cool, thanks a lot for explaining it in detail.
> >>>>> I do not oppose your change but little worried about the
> >>>>> complexity. And I think we have some issues with uncore
> >>>>> events already.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes it is a bit complicated because we are handling
> >>>> many different use cases.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So do you have any idea where evsel->own_cpus
> >>>>> doesn't propagate to evsel->cpus?
> >>>>
> >>>> We let the user's list of CPUs override it i.e. the
> >>>> evlist->has_user_cpus case. Essentially we are expecting
> >>>> the user to know what they are doing.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think evsel->system_wide and evsel->requires_cpu
> >>>>> can be replaced to check evsel->own_cpus instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not at the moment because we let the user override
> >>>> own_cpus.
> >>>
> >>> Do we check whether the user's input is valid (match the PMU's cpumask) before the override?
> >>>
> >>> I think we know the PMU name. The cpumask of the PMU can be found in the sysfs. So we should have enough information for a sanity check.
> >>
> >> For the uncore PMU case, I am not sure what sanity is :-)
> >>
> >
> > For a non-core PMU, e.g., uncore, cstate, power and etc. The cpumask is under the /sys/devices/<PMU>/cpumask. It shows the cpumask which kernel supports. If a end user request a different CPU other that the cpumask, I think it's better throw a waning. It should mitigate the confusion which Namhyung mentioned (uncore -C1,2).
>
> So you couldn't get uncore events unless you are also coincidentally wanting to trace CPU 0.
>
> I guess really the requrement is not to perf_event_open() an uncore PMU more than once?
> To figure that out we'd need to be able map CPUs to uncore PMUs?
We might just use evsel->own_cpus for uncore events and
if the user-given cpu list contains other cpus it can show an
warning.
Thanks,
Namhyung
Powered by blists - more mailing lists