linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support 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]

Message-Id: <20091007.134626.238756485.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eranian@...il.com, eranian@...glemail.com
Cc:	paulus@...ba.org, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_events: add event constraints support for
 Intel processors

From: stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:31:58 +0200

> What PPC does is probably the only way to do this given the interface between
> generic and machine-specific code. The one advantage I see is that it works
> inside an event group but also across event groups because that code does not
> look at group boundary, it only looks at the events and the number of available
> registers. The downside is that you duplicate state.
> 
> Did I get this right, Paul?

That's basically how his code works, yes.  I intend on duplicating
it to some extent on sparc64 since I'm operating in a similar
problem space.

So if at least some of this engine went to a generic place, there'd
be at least a 3rd user :-)
--
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/