linux-kernel - perf_events: questions about cpu_has_ht

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]

Date:	Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:59:10 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	mingo@...e.hu, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, andi.kleen@...el.com
Subject: perf_events: questions about cpu_has_ht_siblings() and offcore support

Lin,

In arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h, you added:

static inline bool cpu_has_ht_siblings(void)
{
       bool has_siblings = false;
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
       has_siblings = cpu_has_ht && smp_num_siblings > 1;
#endif
       return has_siblings;
}

I am wondering about the goal of this function.

Is it supposed to return whether or not HT is enabled?

Ht enabled != HT supported

On my systems (NHM or SNB), its value does not change
when I enable/disable HT.

Looking at Intel's AP-485 (CPUID documentation), they
clearly say that none of the Leaf functions which report
about HT or the number of logical cores, can be used to
detect HT enabled or disabled. Seems those leaf functions
are the basis for smp_num_siblings. The trick in Table-5.5
for bit 28 with CPUID(1).EBX[23:16] used in detect_ht()
is about HT supported and not HT enabled.

HT supported means multi-core or multi-thread supported.

Going back to the perf_event code, I wonder what is the
point of using this function in intel_pmu_cpu_prepare(), then.

I suspect you wanted to know whether or not HT was enabled.
But that's not going to work. If you want that functionality, then
I tried:

+static inline int is_ht_enabled(void)
+{
+       bool has_ht = false;
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+       int w;
+       w = cpumask_weight(cpu_sibling_mask(smp_processor_id()));
+       has_ht = cpu_has_ht && w > 1;
+#endif
+       return has_ht;
+}

But that cannot be used in the CPU hotplug callback for prepare(),
it is too early.

OTOH, you need some validation even in the case HT is off. No two events
scheduled together on the same PMU can have different values for the extra
reg. Thus, the fact that cpu_has_ht_siblings() is imune to HT state helps here,
but then what's the point of it?

I am preparing a patch that builds on your patch and improves
support for those events or features which require an extra
(shared) register. They are differences between NHM/WSM
and SNB.
--
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/