linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH V3 1/6] perf: Add branch stack extra

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: <20231002213752.GB1539@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 23:37:52 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com,
        alexey.v.bayduraev@...ux.intel.com, tinghao.zhang@...el.com,
        Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
        Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V3 1/6] perf: Add branch stack extra

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 03:19:04PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:

> >> Also, add a new branch sample type, PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EVT_CNTRS, to
> >> indicate whether include occurrences of events in branch info. The
> >> information will be stored in the extra space.
> > 
> > This... why do we need two flags?
> 
> Users may only collect the occurrences of some events in a group. The
> EVT_CNTRS flag is used to indicate those events. E.g.,
> perf record -e "{cpu/branch-instructions,branch_type=call/,
> cpu/branch-misses,branch_type=event/}"
> 
> Only the occurrences of the branch-misses event is collected in LBR and
> finally dumped into the extra buffer.
> 
> While the first flag, PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_EXTRA, only tells that the
> extra space is required.

Or have it implicit, I reallt don't see the point of having two bits
here.

> > Also, I can't find this in the SDM, how wide are these counter deltas?
> > ISTR they're saturating, but not how wide they are.
> 
> Now, it's documented in the Intel® Architecture Instruction Set
> Extensions and Future Features, Chapter 8, 8.6 LBR ENHANCEMENTS. It
> should be moved to SDM later.
> https://cdrdv2.intel.com/v1/dl/getContent/671368
> 
> Only 2 bits for each counter. Saturating at a value of 3.

Urgh, this ISE document is shite, that thing don't say how many
IA32_LBR_INFO.PMCx_CNT fields there are, I think your later patch says
4, right? And is this for arch LBR or the other thing?

(Also, what is IA32_LER_x_INFO ?)

This is then a grant total of 8 bits.

And we still have 31 spare bits in perf_branch_entry.

Why again do we need the extra u64 ?!?

More specifically, this interface is pretty crap -- suppose the next
generation of things feels that 2 bits aint' enough and goes and gives
us 4. Then what do we do?

Did I already say that the ISE document raises more questions than it
provides answers?