linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

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:	Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:00:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, eranian@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 15:13 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > All the enable and disable calls can be called from NMI interrupt context
> > and thus must be very careful with locks.
> 
> I didn't think the pmu->enable() and pmu->disable() functions could be
> called from NMI context.

I don't think they're called from NMI context either, most certainly not
from the generic code.

The x86 calls the raw disable from nmi to throttle the counter, but all
that (should) do is disable that counter, which is limited to a single
msr write. After that it schedules a full disable by sending a self-ipi.



--
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/