linux-kernel - Re: [Q] perf, x86: should perf_event

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, 29 May 2010 09:38:57 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Q] perf, x86: should perf_event_x.c being compiled
 conditionally?

On Sat, 2010-05-29 at 01:35 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> while was building the kernel for pretty old laptop I've noticed
> that perf_event_x.c depends on CONFIG_CPU_SUP_ only. So I'm somehow
> confused. Should not some additional condition being used?
> 
> For example if a person have Core 2 or Nehalem machine, he will
> definitely not need p6 and p4 events (yes, they are not _that_ big
> in size, but anyway).
> 
> On the other hands distro builders would prefer to have all compiled in.
> 
> Not sure about what is the best way to resolve this, but perhaps I'm just
> missing some key moment?

We had to split out on the CPU_SUP_* stuff because the AMD support
relies on symbols otherwise not present.

So fixing build dependencies is the main reason we have that.

If you want to extend it, feel free, but be sure to test the
full .config space ;-)
--
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/