linux-kernel - Re: [patch 05/24] perfmon: X86 generic code (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]

Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:49:37 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	eranian@...il.com, eranian@...glemail.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, x86@...nel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au
Subject: Re: [patch 05/24] perfmon: X86 generic code (x86)

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, David Miller wrote:

> From: "stephane eranian" <eranian@...glemail.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 12:35:54 +0100
> 
> > I am still wondering how Oprofile handles the case where multiple
> > processes or threads access the same file descriptor.
> 
> There's only one profiling buffer active on a given cpu,
> so it's pure per-cpu value insertion.
> 
> In any event I think that NMI profiling is a must, especially
> for the kernel.  You get total unusable crap otherwise.  I
> just learned this the hard way having gotten an NMI'ish scheme
> working on sparc64 just the other day.

Not arguing about that, I'm just not agreeing with the implementation.

So for the moment we can go w/o the NMI and implement it cleanly after
we got the initial lot in.

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/