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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:09:14 +0800 From: Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, arjan@...ux.intel.com, "Fu, Michael" <michael.fu@...el.com> Subject: perf, how to support multiple x86 hw pmus? Hi, all Here multiple x86 hw pmus means, for example, Intel "core" and "uncore" pmu. "core" pmu is to collect per cpu data, cpu-cycles, branch-misses, etc. "uncore" pmu is to collect per package data, L3 cache, Intel QPI, integrated memory controller, etc. I am going to add Intel uncore pmu support to perf. To reduce code duplicate, "uncore" pmu should reuse most of the "core" pmu code. But currently, the x86 core pmu code(arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c) only supports one pmu, with a definition as below. static struct x86_pmu x86_pmu __read_mostly; Many functions use above global definition "x86_pmu". It seems to me that we need to re-structure x86 pmu code to support multiple hw pmus. Any idea? Thanks, Lin Ming -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists