linux-kernel - Re: perf_counter Atom patch

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, 23 Jun 2009 11:10:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Yong Wang <yong.y.wang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	eranian@...il.com, "Wang, Yong Y" <yong.y.wang@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: perf_counter Atom patch

On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 16:34 +0800, Yong Wang wrote:
> > you could simply consider having 0 fixed counters and everything else would work
> > as expected. But there is a catch, unfortunately, in that there is erratum AE49
> > which says that there is only one enable bit to control the two generic counters
> > on Core Duo/Solo.

Ah, that's similar to P6 like machines. The P6 docs say that to disable
a counter you should simply write all zeros (except the EN bit for ctr0)
to the control register (IIRC).

I suppose we could do something similar on these errata cores, make
x86_pmu_disable_counter() write ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0_ENABLE instead.

Would that work?

--
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/