linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] perf x86: Add off-core event constraints for Sandy/IvyBridge micro architecture

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130131113456.GE4587@gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:34:56 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] perf x86: Add off-core event constraints for
 Sandy/IvyBridge micro architecture


* Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > hi,
> > > I was looking at the offcore stuff and it looks like we might
> > > be missing some constraints for offcore response events on
> > > Sandy/IvyBridge.
> > >
> > > The table 18.8.5 (Off-core Response Performance Monitoring)
> > > in Intel SDM states PMC0 for 0xb7 and PMC3 for 0xbb, but
> > > there's no other explanation or related description.
> > >
> > > I can't say/ack if the counters looks bad or right with or
> > > without the patch so far.. so just curious ;-)
> > >
> > Those are artificial constraints which should not be there.
> > Remember that offcore_rsp uses an extra MSR which has
> > to be shared by all the counters on the PMU. So a way to
> > handle the sharing of that extra MSR is to impose an
> > artificial constraint on the event itself. If it can only run
> > on one counter, then you get the management of the
> > extra MSR for free, i.e., only one event gets it.
> > 
> > In perf_events, we use a more sophisticated dynamic scheme
> > which does not use this artificial constraint. We can measure
> > the event multiple times and share the extra MSR if possible
> > (same value). Why multiple times you might ask? For instance,
> > with different priv levels.
> > 
> > 
> > Hope this helps.
> 
> nice, thanks a lot for explanation

Would be nice to stick this into the code somewhere appropriate, 
AFAICS this information only lives in older commit logs atm.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/