| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20130125155923.GC25064@jshin-Toonie>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:59:23 -0600
From: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND V5 4/6] perf, x86: Move MSR address offset
calculation to architecture specific files
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:50 PM, Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com> wrote:
> > Move counter index to MSR address offset calculation to architecture
> > specific files. This prepares the way for perf_event_amd to enable
> > counter addresses that are not contiguous -- for example AMD Family
> > 15h processors have 6 core performance counters starting at 0xc0010200
> > and 4 northbridge performance counters starting at 0xc0010240.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jacob Shin <jacob.shin@....com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h | 21 ++++-------------
> > arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> > index 115c1ea..4440218 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> > @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
> > int (*schedule_events)(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int n, int *assign);
> > unsigned eventsel;
> > unsigned perfctr;
> > + int (*addr_offset)(int index, int eventsel);
> > u64 (*event_map)(int);
> > int max_events;
> > int num_counters;
> > @@ -446,28 +447,16 @@ extern u64 __read_mostly hw_cache_extra_regs
> >
> > u64 x86_perf_event_update(struct perf_event *event);
> >
> > -static inline int x86_pmu_addr_offset(int index)
> > -{
> > - int offset;
> > -
> > - /* offset = X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE ? index << 1 : index */
> > - alternative_io(ASM_NOP2,
> > - "shll $1, %%eax",
> > - X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE,
> > - "=a" (offset),
> > - "a" (index));
> > -
> > - return offset;
> > -}
> > -
> > static inline unsigned int x86_pmu_config_addr(int index)
> > {
> > - return x86_pmu.eventsel + x86_pmu_addr_offset(index);
> > + return x86_pmu.eventsel +
> > + (x86_pmu.addr_offset ? x86_pmu.addr_offset(index, 1) : index);
> > }
> >
> > static inline unsigned int x86_pmu_event_addr(int index)
> > {
> > - return x86_pmu.perfctr + x86_pmu_addr_offset(index);
> > + return x86_pmu.perfctr +
> > + (x86_pmu.addr_offset ? x86_pmu.addr_offset(index, 0) : index);
> > }
> Would be better to use a constant name instead of 1 and 0 to name a event_sel
> vs. a counter. It would help the reader understand what this is about
> as that may
> be useful for other processors as well.
Yes will do .. or should I use bool instead? Which would be preferred?
>
> > int x86_setup_perfctr(struct perf_event *event);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c
> > index 0c2cc51..ef1df38 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_amd.c
> > @@ -132,6 +132,47 @@ static u64 amd_pmu_event_map(int hw_event)
> > return amd_perfmon_event_map[hw_event];
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Previously calculated offsets
> > + */
> > +static unsigned int event_offsets[X86_PMC_IDX_MAX] __read_mostly;
> > +static unsigned int count_offsets[X86_PMC_IDX_MAX] __read_mostly;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Legacy CPUs:
> > + * 4 counters starting at 0xc0010000 each offset by 1
> > + *
> > + * CPUs with core performance counter extensions:
> > + * 6 counters starting at 0xc0010200 each offset by 2
> > + */
> > +static inline int amd_pmu_addr_offset(int index, int eventsel)
> > +{
> > + int offset;
> > +
> > + if (!index)
> > + return index;
> > +
> > + if (eventsel)
> > + offset = event_offsets[index];
> > + else
> > + offset = count_offsets[index];
> > +
> > + if (offset)
> > + return offset;
> > +
> > + if (!cpu_has_perfctr_core)
> > + offset = index;
> > + else
> > + offset = index << 1;
> > +
> > + if (eventsel)
> > + event_offsets[index] = offset;
> > + else
> > + count_offsets[index] = offset;
> > +
> > + return offset;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int amd_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > @@ -578,6 +619,7 @@ static __initconst const struct x86_pmu amd_pmu = {
> > .schedule_events = x86_schedule_events,
> > .eventsel = MSR_K7_EVNTSEL0,
> > .perfctr = MSR_K7_PERFCTR0,
> > + .addr_offset = amd_pmu_addr_offset,
> > .event_map = amd_pmu_event_map,
> > .max_events = ARRAY_SIZE(amd_perfmon_event_map),
> > .num_counters = AMD64_NUM_COUNTERS,
> > --
> > 1.7.9.5
> >
> >
>
--
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