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: <20090611082710.GA29784@ywang-moblin2.bj.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:27:10 +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,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] perf_counter/x86: Correct some event and umask
	values for Intel processors

> > 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?
> 
> No, they are indeed different events - that's a bug in the table, 
> good spotting. Mind sending a (tested) patch for it?
> 

I'm a little confused. By dtlb-write-ops, do you want to count the
number of times that DTLB is accessed due to store operations or the
number of times that DTLB entries are written to, i.e. updated?

Btw, do you know whether virtual cache is employed or not on
atom/core2/nehalem so that tlb won't be accessed when accessing l1
caches?

-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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ