linux-kernel - Re: [RFC perf,x86] P4 PMU early draft

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, 9 Feb 2010 09:54:43 +0300
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC perf,x86] P4 PMU early draft

On 2/9/10, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> first of all the patches are NOT for any kind of inclusion. It's not ready
>>
>> yet. More likely I'm asking for glance review, ideas, criticism.
>
> A quick question: does the code produce something on a real P4? (possibly
> only running with a single event - but even that would be enough.)

not yet, a few code snippets need to be added into scheduling routine,
hope to finish this today evening

>
>> The main problem in implementing P4 PMU is that it has much more
>> restrictions for event to MSR mapping. [...]
>
> One possibly simpler approach might be to represent the P4 PMU via a maximum
> _two_ generic events only.
>

yeah, good idea!

> Last i looked at the many P4 events, i've noticed that generally you can
> create any two events. (with a few exceptions) Once you start trying to take
> advantage of the more than a dozen seemingly separate counters, additional
> non-trivial constraints apply.
>
> So if we only allowed a maximum of _two_ generic events (like say a simple
> Core2 has, so it's not a big restriction at all), we wouldnt have to map all
> the constraints, we'd only have to encode the specific event-to-MSR details.
> (which alone is quite a bit of work as well.)
>
> We could also use the new constraints code to map them all, of course - it
> will certainly be more complex to implement.
>

i thought about it, but i didn't like the result code ;) will think about it.

> Hm?
>
> 	Ingo
>
--
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/