linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1263834806.4283.625.camel@laptop>
Date:	Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:13:26 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net, eranian@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v5)

On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 17:51 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> Right hw_perf_enable/disable have no action on breakpoint events.
> These were somehow considered as software events until now.
> 
> That raises the question: why perf_disable() only takes care
> of hardware events? Very few software events can trigger
> between perf_disable() and perf_enable() sections though.
> 
> May be I should handle breakpoints there.

OK, so maybe I'm not understanding the breakpoint stuff correctly, why
is it modeled as a software pmu? It has resource constraints like a
hardware pmu.


--
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/