linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

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, 22 Dec 2009 12:09:41 +1100
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, eranian@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve Intel event scheduling

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 09:59:45PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> Ok, so what you are suggesting is that the assignment is actually done
> incrementally in ->enable(). hw_group_sched_in() would simply validate
> that a single group is sane (i.e., can be scheduled if it was alone).

No, hw_group_sched_in needs to validate that this group can go on
along with everything else that has already been enabled.  But as I
have said, if you have the complete list of enabled events to hand,
that's not hard.

On the other hand, hw_perf_event_init does need to validate that a
single group is sane by itself.

Paul.
--
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/