linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Correct some event and umask values for Intel processors

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: <20090610053623.GC30923@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:36:23 +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: Correct some event and umask
	values for Intel processors

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 04:16:21PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Correct some event and UMASK values according to Intel SDM.
> 
> Very nice, thanks!
> 
> were you able to test the Atom ones by any chance?
> 

You bet I was as I'm working on Moblin;-) However, some work while some
do not. I'll take a look at the problematic ones. With the previous
event and umask values, the pmc does not count at all for some events,
like l1d-write-ops.

Btw, one thing I don't quite understand is why you aliased
dtlb-write-ops to l1d-write-ops when setting event and umask values. Are
they the same event?

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/