linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf, x86: Report TSX transaction abort cost as weight

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, 13 Aug 2013 20:25:18 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...radead.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
	eranian@...gle.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] perf, x86: Report TSX transaction abort cost as
 weight

> Make it a bigger mess: :-)

Ok.  Only the second union is enough, it only needs the flags,
not the cycles.

> 
> struct hsw_tsx_abort_info {
> 	union {
> 		u64 value;
> 		struct {
> 			u32 cycles_last_tx;
> 			union {
> };
> 
> Also, I think your patch is 'broken' in that it dumps the reserved bits
> out to userspace and this brand spanking new SDM doesn't say they're 0.

Will fix.

> __intel_pmu_pebs_event() isn't getting any prettier with all those
> pebs_format tests; but I'm not seeing anything to really fix that.

Ok. Are you merging your patch with these changes (fll, union) 
or should I send a new one?

-Andi

-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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/