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:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:51:41 -0700
From:   Namhyung Kim <>
To:     Andi Kleen <>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
        Jiri Olsa <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Ian Rogers <>,
        Adrian Hunter <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        LKML <>,,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Stephane Eranian <>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <>,,,
        Ben Woodard <>,
        Joe Mario <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        David Blaikie <>,
        Xu Liu <>,
        Kan Liang <>,
        Ravi Bangoria <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/48] perf tools: Introduce data type profiling (v1)

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:09 PM Andi Kleen <> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The main difference seems to be that mine was more for perf script
> > > (e.g. i supported PT decoding), while you are more focused on sampling.
> > > I relied on the kprobes/uprobes engine, which unfortunately was always
> > > quite slow and had many limitations.
> >
> > Right, I think dealing with regular samples would be more useful.
> My code supported samples too, but only through perf script, not report.
> See
> for an example.
> My take was that i wasn't sure that perf report is the right interface
> to visualize the variables changing -- to be really usable you probably
> need some plots and likely something like an UI.

I see.  Your concern is to see how variables are changing.
But it seems you only displayed constant values.

> For you I think you focus more on the types than the individual
> variables? That's a slightly different approach.

Right, you can see which fields in a struct are accessed
mostly and probably change the layout for better result.

> But then my engine had a lot of limitations, i suppose redoing that on
> top of yours would give better results.

Sounds good, thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists