linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf_event: enable overflow interrupts on KNC

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:	Wed, 17 Oct 2012 23:47:00 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	eranian@...il.com,
	"Meadows, Lawrence F" <lawrence.f.meadows@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] perf_event: enable overflow interrupts on KNC


* Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > How well tested is this on real hardware and how robust is the 
> > hardware with this? Since it's a new PMU driver for v3.7, and if 
> > these are reasonably well tested, then we could send these to 
> > Linus via perf/urgent, so that they don't miss and have to wait 
> > all the way to v3.8.
> 
> You probably won't like this answer.
> 
> The patches have been tested against the 2.6.34 kernel that 
> Intel provides for KNC (found here 
> http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/278102 )
> 
> perf stat, perf record, and PAPI have all been tested and 
> work.
>
> The patches I've sent are the 2.6.34 ones forward ported to 
> the 3.7-rc1 kernel.  I haven't been able to run a 3.7-rc 
> kernel on the KNC board, because there are other patches to 
> mainline needed to get KNC running and they'd all have to be 
> forward-ported from 2.6.34.
> 
> Since the knc pmu driver closely models the p6 one, it was 
> straightforward to use it as a basis for the forward port.  
> Everything _should_ work but I've only compile tested.

Ok. As long as it's all identical I'd still be inclined to 
include it in v3.7, to reduce version skew. If the v3.7-rc1 
kernel won't even boot it's not like we'll be able to further 
regress it.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/