linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/31] perf, x86: Basic Haswell PMU 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]

Message-ID: <1348823145.3292.62.camel@twins>
Date:	Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:05:45 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
	acme@...hat.com, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/31] perf, x86: Basic Haswell PMU support

On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 21:31 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>  /*
> + * Also filter out TSX bits.
> + */
> +#define TSX_FIXED_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, n)       \
> +       EVENT_CONSTRAINT(c, (1ULL << (32+n)),   \
> +                        X86_RAW_EVENT_MASK|HSW_INTX|HSW_INTX_CHECKPOINTED)

How volatile are those bits? Will the re-appear in future chips or are
they prone to get re-assigned different semantics in future chips?

If they're 'stable' we might as well add then to FIXED_EVENT_CONSTRAINT,
its not like those bits would ever appear on previous hardware.
--
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/