linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v3] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore 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]

Date:	Thu, 09 Dec 2010 20:17:02 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3 v3] perf: Implement Nehalem uncore pmu

On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 14:15 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > +
> > +static int
> > +uncore_perf_event_set_period(struct perf_event *event)
> > +{
> > +	struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
> > +	s64 left = local64_read(&hwc->period_left);
> > +	s64 period = hwc->sample_period;
> > +	u64 max_period = (1ULL << UNCORE_CNTVAL_BITS) - 1;
> > +	int ret = 0, idx = hwc->idx;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If we are way outside a reasonable range then just skip forward:
> > +	 */
> > +	if (unlikely(left <= -period)) {
> > +		left = period;
> > +		local64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
> > +		hwc->last_period = period;
> > +		ret = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (unlikely(left <= 0)) {
> > +		left += period;
> > +		local64_set(&hwc->period_left, left);
> > +		hwc->last_period = period;
> > +		ret = 1;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (left > max_period)
> > +		left = max_period;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The hw event starts counting from this event offset,
> > +	 * mark it to be able to extra future deltas:
> > +	 */
> > +	local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, (u64)-left);
> 
> All uncore pmu interrupts from a socket are routed to one of the four
> cores, so local64_set seems not correct here.
> 
> But hwc->prev_count is defined as local64_t, any idea how to set it
> correctly?
> 
> Or is it OK if local64_set is always executed in the same cpu?

Yes, the local_t bits work as expected when its always accessed by the
same cpu.
--
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/