linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix intel shared extra msr allocation

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]

Date:	Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:07:04 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix intel shared extra msr allocation

On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 12:38 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> How about we add a field or flag to cpuc to tell it's fake, and then
> in
> try_alt_er() and __intel_shared_reg_get_constraints() we avoid
> touching
> live struct (like reg->alloc) if fake==1. I think he was trying to do
> the same with the core_id == -1 test. 

We might have to do something like that, however I'm trying to figure
out when that reg->alloc test in __intel_shared_reg_get_contraints() is
useful.

If it is useful in event scheduling, we cannot just leave it out in
validate_group().
--
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/