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: <20120201143137.GD1655@m.brq.redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:31:37 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, acme@...hat.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, paulus@...ba.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] perf: Adding sysfs group format attribute for pmu
 device

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 14:13 +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > Are you are suggesting that a single event could use multiple groups
> > > because they may share some common fields, such as the event code?  If
> > > so, I think that might be confusing.   I think it would be better to
> > > have every group fully lay out the bits in the config{,1,2} fields so
> > > that you only need to specify one group per event, even if that leads to
> > > some redundancy (e.g. group1..n all have an eventcode field.)
> > 
> > ok, it'd be the 'cpu::group1/config=1,config1=2,config2=3/u' then..
> > 
> > but let's see what Peter thinks about this, since he first suggested
> > to 'fix' this by having separate pmu drivers.. not format groups :) 
> 
> I'm not convinced we need the whole grouping thing. Even x86 might have
> overlapping definitions, even for a single PMU (config1 contents will
> radically differ depending on the actual events used for instance).

well, I think let's go with what we have now, and see if need/want
to care about format groups later after we use it for a while..

since the "cpu/..../" syntax is new interface, there should be no
problem to change it

> 
> All we should do is warn the user when overlapping masks are used in a
> single event definition and other than that just do as they tell us.

that should be no problem..
do you want it in to take this.. ooor is later ok ;)

jirka

> 
> PMUs can always do an informal namespace thing if really needed, eg. by
> using a consistent prefix.
> 
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ