linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Optimize event reschedule for a PMU

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: <1fc7dc5f-c3fa-4993-b46d-8261a6e4b79d@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:31:07 -0400
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
 LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
 Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
 Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/core: Optimize event reschedule for a PMU



On 2024-08-02 3:11 p.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:50:23PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:43:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 08:38:41PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 02:30:19PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -2792,7 +2833,14 @@ static int  __perf_install_in_context(void *info)
>>>>>>  	if (reprogram) {
>>>>>>  		ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME);
>>>
>>> Clearly I should read better...
>>>
>>>>>>  		add_event_to_ctx(event, ctx);
>>>>>> -		ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +		if (ctx->nr_events == 1) {
>>>>>> +			/* The first event needs to set ctx->is_active. */
>>>>>> +			ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, NULL, get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +		} else {
>>>>>> +			ctx_resched(cpuctx, task_ctx, event->pmu_ctx->pmu,
>>>>>> +				    get_event_type(event));
>>>>>> +			ctx_sched_in(ctx, EVENT_TIME);
>>>>>
>>>>> The changelog doesn't mention the time difference much. As my
>>>>> understanding, the time is shared among PMUs in the same ctx.
>>>>> When perf does ctx_resched(), the time is deducted.
>>>>> There is no problem to stop and restart the global time when perf
>>>>> re-schedule all PMUs.
>>>>> But if only one PMU is re-scheduled while others are still running, it
>>>>> may be a problem to stop and restart the global time. Other PMUs will be
>>>>> impacted.
>>>
>>> So yeah, this stops ctx time but not all PMUs.
>>
>> But isn't this already the case? We don't have perf_ctx_disable() here
>> currently. 
>>
>> Bah, this heat is melting my brain.
> 
> I think all it wants is to update time and ensure the added event and
> the resched all use the same time, which could be done differently.
>

Yes. I think that's what the current code tries to do.
But it seems the current code doesn't do it clearly either.

ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME); <-- disable the time
ctx_resched()
    perf_ctx_disable()          <-- disable all PMUs

    perf_event_sched_in()
        ctx_sched_in()          <-- enable the time
    perf_ctx_enable()           <-- enable all PMUs

I think the ctx_sched_out(ctx, EVENT_TIME) should be moved after the
perf_ctx_disable();.
Hope it can be fixed by the different way.

> But I'll have to continue staring at this later.

Sure.

Thanks,
Kan