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]

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/