linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: new x86

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]

Message-ID: <20060823125843.GF697@frankl.hpl.hp.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Aug 2006 05:58:43 -0700
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, discuss@...-64.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] 2.6.17.9 perfmon2 patch for review: new x86_64 files

Andi,

On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:29:04PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 August 2006 14:14, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 01:22:44PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I have a second thought on this. AMD has architected the performance counters.
> > > 
> > > Quote:
> > > >>
> > > Implementations are not required to support the performance
> > > c o u n t e rs and the event-select registers, or the time-stamp
> > > counter. The presence of these features can be determined by
> > > <<
> > > 
> > At the end of this paragraph then mention using CPUID to determine
> > the presence of the counters. AFAIK, there is no feature bit
> > covering performance monitoring. Does that mean we are left
> > with having to check the family and model number just like on
> > Intel?
> 
> Yes I puzzled over that too. Maybe they meant the MSR CPUID bits, but most likely
> it was a mistake by the tech writer.
> 
> Yes I think you have to. Only checking vendor/family should be fine though -- i am not
> aware of performance counter variations between models.

Today, I am just checking for family 15. If they have variations it could be with
the low power (laptop) models where counters may not be present at all.

> Perhaps add a force argument again that disables the family check too.
> 
> > Ok, I think I understand now:
> > 	1/ Bios and Kernel Developer Guide from Ahtlon64 and Opteron 64 is
> > 	  what you are talking about with K7/K8
> 
> Well K8.
> 
> K7 has a different one. But ok. I think you don't try to support K7 at all
> currently (it has the same register format as K8, but the list of counters
> is different)
> 
What is the "commercial name" of K7 processors?

-- 
-Stephane
-
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/