linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: add SNB/IVB/HSW client uncore memory controller 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 19:31:59 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] perf/x86/uncore: add SNB/IVB/HSW client uncore
 memory controller support

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 05:25:39PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 04:20:12PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> This patch adds a new uncore PMU for Intel SNB/IVB/HSW client
>> >
>> >
>> >> @@ -3501,6 +3844,28 @@ static int __init uncore_pci_init(void)
>> >>               pci_uncores = ivt_pci_uncores;
>> >>               uncore_pci_driver = &ivt_uncore_pci_driver;
>> >>               break;
>> >> +     case 42: /* Sandy Bridge */
>> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_SNB_IMC);
>> >> +             if (ret)
>> >> +                     return ret;
>> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
>> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &snb_uncore_pci_driver;
>> >> +             break;
>> >> +     case 60: /* Haswell */
>> >> +     case 69: /* Haswell Celeron */
>> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_HSW_IMC);
>> >> +             if (ret)
>> >> +                     return ret;
>> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
>> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &hsw_uncore_pci_driver;
>> >> +             break;
>> >> +     case 58: /* Ivy Bridge */
>> >> +             ret = snb_pci2phy_map_init(PCI_DEVICE_ID_INTEL_IVB_IMC);
>> >> +             if (ret)
>> >> +                     return ret;
>> >> +             pci_uncores = snb_pci_uncores;
>> >> +             uncore_pci_driver = &ivb_uncore_pci_driver;
>> >> +             break;
>> >>       default:
>> >>               return 0;
>> >>       }
>> >
>> > I reorderd that list; but looking at perf_event_intel.c we have a lot
>> > more HSW clients listed there. Plz as to make it consistent.
>>
>> I don't have all of them, so no testing possible. I doubt they have so
>> many clients model numbers.
>
> Yeah, I don't have any of those chips.. last I have is WSM-EP.
>
> Anyway, perf_event_intel.c lists: 60,63,69,70,71 as being haswell
> clients.  Andi did all that, so if its wrong its on Intel anyway.
>
What he has is okay for core. They all have the same core PMU at 99%.
But the uncore can be radically different. Look at IVB (58) vs IVB-EP (62).
So this is more risky there. That is why I did not add the other model numbers.

> I'm still thinking we ought to make a big Intel classification function;
> something that returns something like:
>
> struct intel_part {
>         enum { client, ep, ex } type;
>         enum { core, core2, nhm, wsm, snb, ivb, hsw } gen;
> };
>
> And we can do things like:
>
>   if (ip.type == client && ip.gen >= snb)
>
> And then we only have to fix up the one classification function with all
> those stupid model numbers, instead of having them duplicated all over
> the stinking place.

Yeah, I am not opposed to that idea for PMU purposes.
--
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/