linux-kernel - RE: [patch] x86, perf_counter, bts: add bts to perf

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: <1249646229.32113.692.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:57:09 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"markus.t.metzger@...il.com" <markus.t.metzger@...il.com>,
	"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [patch] x86, perf_counter, bts: add bts to perf_counter

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:51 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Peter Zijlstra [mailto:a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl]
> >Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 1:45 PM
> >To: Metzger, Markus T
> >Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; mingo@...e.hu; tglx@...utronix.de; hpa@...or.com;
> >markus.t.metzger@...il.com; oleg@...hat.com
> >Subject: Re: [patch] x86, perf_counter, bts: add bts to perf_counter
> >
> >On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 09:22 +0200, Markus Metzger wrote:
> >> @@ -721,9 +903,13 @@ static int __hw_perf_counter_init(struct
> >>         err = 0;
> >>         if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&active_counters)) {
> >>                 mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
> >> -               if (atomic_read(&active_counters) == 0 && !reserve_pmc_hardware())
> >> -                       err = -EBUSY;
> >> -               else
> >> +               if (atomic_read(&active_counters) == 0) {
> >> +                       if (!reserve_pmc_hardware())
> >> +                               err = -EBUSY;
> >> +                       else
> >> +                               reserve_bts_hardware();
> >> +               }
> >> +               if (!err)
> >>                         atomic_inc(&active_counters);
> >>                 mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
> >>         }
> >
> >You loose the reserve_bts_hardware() error case there.
> 
> 
> That had been intentional since I consider BTS somewhat optional. In case it is not available or
> fails to initialize, e.g. out of memory, we fall back to normal profiling.
> 
> Now that I think about it again, I guess that's not what a (debugger) user would expect.
> An error might be more appropriate in that case.
> 
> I'll change it.

If there's hardware that supports intel perfmon v2+ but doesn't have BTS
(I don't think so) then we shouldn't fail it hard on not present.

But if the BTS stuff should always be present on the hardware then we
can indeed unconditionally fail.

--
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/