linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf: Add memory load/store events generic code

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1309960302.3282.283.camel@twins>
Date:	Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:51:42 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] perf: Add memory load/store events generic code

On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 13:53 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:

> Do you mean to use the "impossible combinations" to express the inverse?

Nah, impossible would be things like having neither LOAD nor STORE set.

> MEM_STORE_DCU_MISS as: store-l2-l3-dram
> MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS as: store-itlb-dtlb
> 
> How about below code?

Right, something like that. Robert can the IBS data source data be
mapped onto this as well?

> #define PERF_MEM_LOAD                   (1ULL << 0)
> #define PERF_MEM_STORE                  (1ULL << 1)
> #define PERF_MEM_ATOMIC                 (1ULL << 2)
> #define PERF_MEM_L1                     (1ULL << 3)
> #define PERF_MEM_L2                     (1ULL << 4)
> #define PERF_MEM_L3                     (1ULL << 5)
> #define PERF_MEM_RAM                    (1ULL << 6)
> #define PERF_MEM_UNKNOWN                (1ULL << 7)
> #define PERF_MEM_IO                     (1ULL << 8)
> #define PERF_MEM_UNCACHED               (1ULL << 9)
> #define PERF_MEM_RESERVED               (1ULL << 10)
> #define PERF_MEM_LOCAL                  (1ULL << 11)
> #define PERF_MEM_REMOTE                 (1ULL << 12)
> #define PERF_MEM_SNOOP                  (1ULL << 13)
> #define PERF_MEM_MODIFIED               (1ULL << 14)
> #define PERF_MEM_EXCLUSIVE              (1ULL << 15)
> #define PERF_MEM_SHARED                 (1ULL << 16)
> #define PERF_MEM_INVALID                (1ULL << 17)

> #define PERF_MEM_ITLB                   (1ULL << 18)
> #define PERF_MEM_DTLB                   (1ULL << 19)
> #define PERF_MEM_STLB                   (1ULL << 20)

Are these TLB hit or miss?

> #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_HIT  \
>         (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L1)
> 
> #define PERF_MEM_STORE_L1D_MISS \
>         (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_L2 | PERF_MEM_L3 | PERF_MEM_RAM)
> 
> #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_HIT \
>         (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_STLB)
>       
> #define PERF_MEM_STORE_STLB_MISS \
>         (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB)

Going by the definition in table 30-22 neither of these seem correct, a
STLB_HIT was defined as DTLB|STLB whereas a STLB_MISS was missing both
(resulting in a full page-table walk I presume).

> #define PERF_MEM_STORE_ATOMIC \
>         (PERF_MEM_STORE | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)
> 
> #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_HIT  \
>         (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_STLB)
>    
> #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_STLB_MISS \
>         (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ITLB | PERF_MEM_DTLB)

idem

> #define PERF_MEM_LOAD_ATOMIC \
>         (PERF_MEM_LOAD | PERF_MEM_ATOMIC)
> 

--
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/