| 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: <02135ffb-c19c-6c8c-4900-a16a1c40a746@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 10:03:31 -0400
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tyson Thomas <tyson.thomas@...ney.edu.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG REPORT] perf tools: x86_64: weight column displays odd
memory latency data
On 6/1/2022 1:03 AM, Tyson Thomas wrote:
> Hi Kan,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> The exact command used was: perf mem report
>
> The columns are in order: Overhead, Samples, Local Weight, Memory Access.
> The results I sent before are: Overhead, Local Weight and Memory.
>
> So, to update the table from before, each tuple has a sample of 1, so it is:
>
> 0.02%,1 ,62515 ,L1 or L1 hit
> 0.02%,1 ,54048 ,L1 or L1 hit
> 0.02%,1 ,52206 ,L1 or L1 hit
> 0.02%,1 ,49831 ,L1 or L1 hit
> 0.02%,1 ,49056 ,Local RAM or RAM hit
> 0.01%,1 ,40666 ,LFB or LFB hit
> 0.01%,1 ,38080 ,L1 or L1 hit
> 0.01%,1 ,36772 ,L1 or L1 hit
>
> So, the weights are absurdly high here.
>
> I'll give a reply on perf report -D shortly.
>
> Regards,
> Tyson
>
>
>
> From: Liang, Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 25 May 2022 12:58 AM
> To: Tyson Thomas <tyson.thomas@...ney.edu.au>; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org <linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org>
> Subject: Re: [BUG REPORT] perf tools: x86_64: weight column displays odd memory latency data
>
>
>
> On 5/22/2022 6:14 PM, Tyson Thomas wrote:
>> Hi Kan, Linux-Perf Team
>>
>> I have observed some odd behaviour within perf when using perf-mem. Specifically the reported latency under the weight column appears to be unreasonably high.
>>
>> Here is a given sample from a recent test, I find that some of the latencies are close to an unsigned short and I cannot seem to be understand why that would be outside of it being an issue with the perf events.
>>
>> This can be replicated using a NAS benchmark, specifically cg.D.
I tried the cg.D benchmark on my machine, but I cannot reproduce the
issue. The weight looks reasonable.
$ perf mem record ./bin/cg.D.x
NAS Parallel Benchmarks (NPB3.4-OMP) - CG Benchmark
Size: 1500000
Iterations: 100
Number of available threads: 4
^C[ perf record: Woken up 118 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 30.108 MB perf.data (438307 samples) ]
$ perf mem report --stdio
# To display the perf.data header info, please use
--header/--header-only options.
#
#
# Total Lost Samples: 0
#
# Samples: 209K of event 'cpu/mem-loads,ldlat=30/Pu'
# Total weight : 56835744
# Sort order :
local_weight,mem,sym,dso,symbol_daddr,dso_daddr,snoop,tlb,locked,blocked,local_ins_lat,p_stage_cyc
#
# Overhead Samples Local Weight Memory access Symbol
Shared Object Data Symbol >
# ........ ............ ............ ........................
................................ .................... ............>
#
0.01% 66 53 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.01% 53 58 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.01% 59 52 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 53 53 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 43 65 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 50 55 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 51 50 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 46 55 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 49 51 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2496 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 48 52 L1 or L1 hit [.]
randlc_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2441 Local RAM or RAM hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2420 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2415 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2403 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2399 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2390 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2385 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2385 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2378 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
0.00% 1 2358 LFB or LFB hit [.]
sparse_ cg.D.x [.] 0x00007f>
Thanks,
Kan
>>
>> I observe the following results in perf mem report (just getting the top 10 results)
>>
>
>
> Could you please show me the exact perf command used?
>
> With my perf mem report,
> The first column is the Overhead.
> The second column is the number of samples.
> The third column is the weight.
> The fourth is the Memory access.
>
> Seems like the weight is missed?
>
> Could you please check the perf report -D?
> It will dump the weight for each Sample.
> Does it look correct?
>
> Thanks,
> Kan
>
>> 0.02% ,62515 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.02% ,54048 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.02% ,52206 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.02% ,49831 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.02% ,49056 ,Local RAM or RAM hit
>> 0.01% ,40666 ,LFB or LFB hit
>> 0.01% ,38080 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.01% ,36772 ,L1 or L1 hit
>> 0.01% ,36729 ,LFB or LFB hit
>> 0.01% ,27101 ,LFB or LFB hit
>>
>> Is it possible for someone to shed some light on this or am I misunderstanding how the weight column is used here?
>> This appears to have been an issue on 5.4, 5.10 and 5.15. I am looking into seeing if it is still present in 5.17 and 5.18.
>>
>> I've also tried this on different Intel CPUs such as Intel Xeon 6230, i5-1135G7, Intel Xeon 6330
>>
>> Any insight or help would be appreciated,
>> Tyson
Powered by blists - more mailing lists