linux-kernel - perf

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1276273784.2077.2055.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 11 Jun 2010 18:29:44 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	paulus <paulus@...ba.org>,
	stephane eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: perf_disable()

Hi,

I've been going over perf_disable() usage in kernel/perf_event.c and
wondered if we actually need it at all.

Currently the only thing we seem to require it for is around pmu::enable
calls (and for that powerpc at least does it itself, on x86 we rely on
it to call ->enable_all and reprogram the pmu state).

But I can't really find any NMI races wrt data structures or the like as
seems implied by some comments. 

There is a fun little recursion issue with perf_adjust_period(), where
if we fully removed perf_disable() we could end up calling pmu::stop()
twice and such.

But aside from that it looks to me its mostly about optimizing hardware
writes.

If nobody else known about/can find anything, I'm going to mostly remove
perf_disable() for now and later think about how to optimize the
hardware writes again.
--
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/