linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] perf list: Remove duplicate PMUs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2ca49280-3c31-71b6-8efe-dd8e26f3dcc9@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 12:15:04 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] perf list: Remove duplicate PMUs

On 01/08/2023 18:39, Ian Rogers wrote:
>>> I didn't write this behavior, it has pre-existed my contributions. I'm
>>> hoping to change the perf list behavior as we're seeing large server
>>> systems with getting on toward 100 PMUs, the events are replicated for
>>> each one and the perf list and testing behaviors are somewhat
>>> exploding in size.
>> Sure, that is why I was advised PMU kernel drivers event names to be
>> unique per PMU, so that we can add an event alias in a JSON and then
>> kernel events are matched and removed from perf list.
>>
>> I suppose that your changes are an alternative to the problem of
>> mushrooming kernel event list.
> Thanks John, yep this is going after that problem. Could I get a
> reviewed/acked/tested-by for these changes?

I'll try to help.

So we have:

Before:
```
$ perf list
...
   uncore_imc_free_running_0/data_read/               [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running_0/data_total/              [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running_0/data_write/              [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running_1/data_read/               [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running_1/data_total/              [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running_1/data_write/              [Kernel PMU event]
```

After:
```
$ perf list
...
   uncore_imc_free_running/data_read/                 [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running/data_total/                [Kernel PMU event]
   uncore_imc_free_running/data_write/                [Kernel PMU event]
```
How about keep listing uncore_imc_free_running_0 and the rest for perf 
list -v? Or something like that.

I find that the perf tool has lots of veiled tricks in terms of usage 
and describing events available and how to use them.

Thanks,
John