linux-kernel - RE: [Perfctr-devel] [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v4

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]

Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:23:32 -0500
From:	"Dan Terpstra" <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>
To:	"'Paul Mackerras'" <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"'Peter Zijlstra'" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	"'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"'David S. Miller'" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"'Robert Richter'" <robert.richter@....com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"'Eric Dumazet'" <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	"'Stephane Eranian'" <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	"'Peter Anvin'" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"'Thomas Gleixner'" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	<perfctr-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"'Arjan van de Ven'" <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [Perfctr-devel] [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v4


> Peter Zijlstra writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 23:11 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > I think the core should put together a list of counters and counter
> > > groups that it would like to have on the PMU simultaneously and then
> > > make one call to the arch layer to ask if that is possible.  That
> > > could either return success or failure.  If it returns failure then
> > > the core needs to ask for something less, or something different.  I'm
> > > not sure how the core should choose what to ask for instead, though.
> >
> > I think the constraint set should be applied when we add to a group, if
> > when we add a counter to the group, the result isn't schedulable
> > anymore, we should fail the group addition - and thereby the counter
> > creation.
> >
> > This would leave us with groups that are always schedulable in an atomic
> > fashion.
> 
> I agree that if adding a counter to a group results in that group not
> being schedulable any more, we should fail the addition.
> 
That's what PAPI does.
In userspace.
Using libpfm.
Before counting anything.
On linux, AIX, Windows, Cray...
Talking to perfmon, perfctr, our own drivers, and maybe someday even the
linux performance counter subsystem.
- d

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/