linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support

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]

Message-ID: <AANLkTin0PrMKOjC-_w7wS0y0me8Qn0bdDN-p=O8sTOM6@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:13:11 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 -tip] perf: x86, add SandyBridge support

Also for offcore_reponse_*, the fact that they are marked as PMC3 only is just
a convenience for scheduling. Given both events need an extra MSR, it makes
scheduling easier if you consider offcore_reponse_0 to work only on one counter.
That guarantees there won't be conflict on that extra MSR. The downside, is that
you cannot measure the event twice if you only want to vary the counter filters
(not the extra MSR), e.g., measure one instance at user level and the other at
kernel level.

On SNB, the extra MSRs are not shared by HT threads anymore (Table B-9).
That means that in the offcore patch, the extra_config logic is needed but not
the mutual exclusion between HT threads.


On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 17:08 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > In other words, bit 0-3 of the umask cannot be zero.
>> >
>> > I got the umask from "Table 30-20. PEBS Performance Events for Intel
>> > microarchitecture code name Sandy Bridge".
>> >
>> > But from "Table A-2. Non-Architectural Performance Events In the Processor Core
>> > for Intel Core Processor 2xxx Series", the combinations are needed as you show
>> > above.
>> >
>> > Which one is correct?
>>
>> Since you have access to the hardware, could you please test and see it in practice
>> which one is correct?
>
> Stephane is right, need the combination.
> Sorry that I may made mistake when I tested 0xd0 pebs events.
>
> Re-test all PEBS events, now only below 2 events need more support to
> work.
>
> PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x01cd, 0x8), /* MEM_TRANS_RETIRED.LOAD_LATENCY */
> PEBS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x02cd, 0x8), /* MEM_TRANS_RETIRED.PRECISE_STORE*/
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>       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/