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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20140211203413.GB9987@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 11 Feb 2014 21:34:13 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
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 07:31:59PM +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > 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.

Well, if any of those is a !client part; then still his fault for not
putting in a comment.

What's the worst that can happen? Failing to find the hardware I suppose
seeing as this is all discoverable PCI space?
--
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/