linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 0/13] perf: Intel uncore pmu counting 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]

Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:13:30 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, mingo@...e.hu,
	jolsa@...hat.com, andi@...stfloor.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 0/13] perf: Intel uncore pmu counting support

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@...el.com> wrote:
> On 06/21/2012 04:10 PM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Yan, Zheng <zheng.z.yan@...el.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2012 12:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ok, so with this stuff something like:
>>>>
>>>>   perf stat -ae uncore/event=clockticks/ foo
>>>>
>>>> will register a counter per cpu, which is somewhat silly since we only
>>>> need one per node. What would be the best way to 'fix' this?
>>>>
>>>> We could of course create another variant of -a which iterates nodes
>>>> instead of cpus, -N or so.
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively we could try and describe this in sysfs in some way, one
>>>> possibility would be to include a link to /sys/devices/system/{cpu,node}
>>>> or somesuch and use that link to iterate the correct space.
>>>>
>>>> Any other suggestions?
>>>>
>>> How about treat the 'cpu' parameter for uncore event as socket id instead
>>> of cpu id?
>>>
>> But that does not address the use case of Peter, i.e., no cpu parameter passed.
>> Looks like sysfs might be the only way to do this in a portable manner.
>>
> It does. For example, on a dual socket system, perf can only register uncore
> counter with 'cpu' parameter is equal to 0 or 1. This method is hacky, but it
> requires minimal change for the kernel and perf tool.
>
I was saying, I don't want to have to pass -C x with -a and yet have perf stat
only instantiate the event once per socket. I think that's what PeterZ was
asking about.

> Regards
> Yan, Zheng
>
--
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/