linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Fix incorrect default branch

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, 9 Jun 2009 21:32:32 +0800
From:	Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Fix incorrect default branch

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 03:23:13PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > The event selector and UMASK values of Nehalem do not apply to all 
> > Intel processors.
> 
> The idea was to offer _some_ sort of table on new CPUs, instead of 
> nothing...
> 
> Eventually Intel stops changing those model specific index values in 
> future CPUs and puts them into architectural perfmon, for 
> fundamental stats like L1/LLC cache statistics.
> 
> In that case defaulting to the latest (known) enumeration might work 
> out to be just the thing used by all future CPUs.
> 
> So this is a subtle hint ;-)
> 

I see what you mean. You talked about future cpus. But what about those
old ones that are not atom, core2 or nehalem? Forget about them?

Thanks
-Yong
--
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/