linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v6 incremental)

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:	Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:56:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	eranian@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
	paulus@...ba.org, davem@...emloft.net, fweisbec@...il.com,
	perfmon2-devel@...ts.sf.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: improve x86 event scheduling (v6 
 incremental)

On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 00:08 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> I think there is a problem with this following code:
> 
> void hw_perf_enable(void)
>                 for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) {
> 
>                         event = cpuc->event_list[i];
>                         hwc = &event->hw;
> 
>                         if (hwc->idx == -1 || hwc->idx == cpuc->assign[i])
>                                 continue;
> 
> Here you are looking for events which are moving. I think the 2nd
> part of the if is not good enough. It is not because hwc->idx is
> identical to the assignment, that you can assume the event was
> already there. It may have been there in the past, then scheduled
> out and replaced at idx by another event. When it comes back,
> it gets its spot back, but it needs to be reprogrammed.
> 
> That is why in v6 incremental, I have added last_cpu, last_tag
> to have a stronger checks and match_prev_assignment().
> 
> Somehow it is missing in the series you've committed unless
> I am missing something.

Right, that went missing because I was assuming that was for the
optimization of reducing to one loop. And since I didn't see that one
loop version work I left that part out.

(The risk of doing more than one thing in one patch)

Still, shouldn't be hard to correct, I'll look at doing a patch for this
on monday, unless you beat me to it :-)

--
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/