linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc

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: <20090904052005.GN18599@kernel.dk>
Date:	Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:20:05 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] basic perf support for sparc

On Thu, Sep 03 2009, David Miller wrote:
> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:02:56 +0200
> 
> > 
> > * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Does this build for you without adding an
> >> arch/sparc/include/asm/perf_counter.h that looks
> >> something like the following?
> >> 
> >> #ifndef _ASM_SPARC_PERF_COUNTER_H
> >> #define _ASM_SPARC_PERF_COUNTER_H
> >> 
> >> #define PERF_COUNTER_INDEX_OFFSET	0
> >> 
> >> #endif
> >> 
> >> Or is this somehow now required in the -tip trees?
> > 
> > This used to be required but i recently fixed this (and that fix is 
> > upstream as well) via:
> > 
> >   f738eb1: perf_counter: Fix the PARISC build
> > 
> > there's now a default define of 0 so you dont have to define it and 
> > can leave out this chunk.
> > 
> > ( That index is only interesting if the architecture has a way to 
> >   allow unprivileged user-space to access counter registers 
> >   directly. In that case the index reflects the offset from the 
> >   (constantly changing) dynamix index which we put into the mmap 
> >   header. With Sparc not having a hw-PMU implementation this index 
> >   is entirely uninteresting at this stage. )
> 
> But you still do need at least an empty perf_counter.h file
> right?  Jens must have left the file out of his submission
> by accident, and that's what I'm trying to get to the bottom
> of here :-)
> 
> I assume there was a similar change to deal with references to
> set_perf_counter_pending() too or is at least a NOP definition
> still needed?

It wasn't required when I built and used it (and sent the patch), I used
the posted patch as-is. It's been a few weeks since I last updated and
ran that box, let me double check after morning coffee and send you a
fresh patch (if needed) :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/