linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf sched: Fix task state report

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: <CAM9d7cigWxAN_nmT2rO-o7YG0hkmPNjDPeLtsn=z1YqRSjMEjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2024 14:44:58 -0800
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, 
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>, 
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, 
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Ze Gao <zegao@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf sched: Fix task state report

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 5:54 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 7:53 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:15 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 11:00 AM Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:35 AM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Jan 14, 2024 at 11:23 PM Ze Gao <zegao2021@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problems of task state report in both libtraceevent
> > > > > > and perf sched has been reported in [1]. In short, they
> > > > > > parsed the wrong state due to relying on the outdated
> > > > > > hardcoded state string to interpret the raw bitmask
> > > > > > from the record, which left the messes to maintain the
> > > > > > backward compatibilities for both tools.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] has not managed to make itself into the kernel, the
> > > > > > problems and the solutions are well studied though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Luckily, as suggested by Steven, perf/libtraceevent
> > > > > > records the print format, especially the __print_flags()
> > > > > > part of the in-kernel tracepoint sched_switch in its
> > > > > > metadata, and we have a chance to build the state str
> > > > > > on the fly by parsing it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that libtraceevent has landed this solution in [2],
> > > > > > we now apply the same idea to perf as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your work.  But perf links libtraceevent
> > > > > conditionally so you need to make sure if it works without
> > > > > that too.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've tested with NO_LIBTRACEEVENT=1, and it turns
> > > > out perf removes perf sched subcmd without libtraceevent,
> > >
> > > FWIW,  commit 378ef0f5d9d7f4 ("perf build: Use libtraceevent
> > > from the system") has proved this as well.
> >
> > Right, but I think we can enable perf sched without libtraceevent
> > for minimal features like record only.  But that doesn't belong to
> > this change set.
> >
> > >
> > > > which explains why the compiler does not complain no
> > > > evsel__intval() defined when !HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT
> > > > given the fact so many references of evsel__intval() in
> > > > builtin-sched.c.
> > > > Here evsel__taskstate() uses the exact assumption as
> > > > evsel__intval(), so I put it next to it for clarity and it works
> > > > without a doubt.
> > > >
> > > > > I think all libtraceevent related stuff should be in the
> > > > > util/trace-event.c which is included only if the library is
> > > > > available.  Maybe util/trace-event-parse.c is a better
> > > > > place but then you need to tweak the python-ext-sources
> > > > > and Makefile.perf for the case it's not available.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for pointing this out. I will do the hack if you insist
> > > > on this move :D. But I think the current version is clear
> > > > enough, otherwise we need to move all the parts guarded
> > > > by #ifdef HAVE_LIBTRACEEVENT out for complete decoupling.
> > > > What do you think of it?
> >
> > Oh, I realized that all the affected codes are under the #ifdef
> > properly then maybe it's ok for now.  But I prefer moving the
> > code if you're ok.  Maybe I can accept this code as is and you
>
> Sounds great!
>
> > can work on the refactoring later.  Does that work for you?
>
> Absolutely! Will send the following refactoring patches soon. :D

Thanks, but your patches don't apply cleanly.  Could you please
rebase it onto the current perf-tools-next tree?

Thanks,
Namhyung