linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/3] Basic support for LWP

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, 5 Oct 2010 17:34:11 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Hans Rosenfeld <hans.rosenfeld@....com>
cc:	robert.richter@....com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Herrmann3, Andreas" <Andreas.Herrmann3@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Basic support for LWP

On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Hans Rosenfeld wrote:

> [ adding Robert ]
> 
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 06:13:46PM -0400, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > LWP (Light-Weight Profiling) is a new profiling mechanism that allows
> > > user mode processes to gather performance data about themselves with
> > > very low overhead. The specification can be found here:
> > >         http://developer.amd.com/cpu/LWP/Pages/default.aspx
> > 
> > All I can see there is marketing blurb. The spec pdf does not tell me
> > either how the end result of your patches will look like.
> 
> Well, you should get a basic understanding of how LWP works from the
> spec. I'm pretty sure there is more than that blurb in there.
> 
> What I sent _is_ the end result. Supporting LWP in the task switching
> code is the only thing necessary to use the LWP instructions in user
> space. And that is also what I'd like to get some comments on.

So it's the end result. Ok, then explain the following sentence:
 
> > > This code adds basic support for LWP to the context switch code, which
> > > is the minimum needed to use LWP. Support for other LWP features like
> > > interrupts will be added later.

If your patch _IS_ the end result then there are no other LWP
features, right ?

If there are, then your patch is _NOT_ the end result and we really
want to know what is coming.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/