linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] perf: add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() helper for use by sw-like pmus

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: <20140225033326.135BB2C0227@ozlabs.org>
Date:	Tue, 25 Feb 2014 14:33:26 +1100 (EST)
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux PPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] perf: add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() helper for use by sw-like pmus

On Fri, 2014-14-02 at 22:02:05 UTC, Cody P Schafer wrote:
> Add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() and PMU_RANGE_RESV() (for reserved areas) which
> generate functions to extract the relevent bits from
> event->attr.config{,1,2} for use by sw-like pmus where the
> 'config{,1,2}' values don't map directly to hardware registers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  include/linux/perf_event.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/perf_event.h b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> index e56b07f..2702e91 100644
> --- a/include/linux/perf_event.h
> +++ b/include/linux/perf_event.h
> @@ -871,4 +871,21 @@ _name##_show(struct device *dev,					\
>  									\
>  static struct device_attribute format_attr_##_name = __ATTR_RO(_name)
>  
> +#define PMU_RANGE_ATTR(name, attr_var, bit_start, bit_end)		\
> +PMU_FORMAT_ATTR(name, #attr_var ":" #bit_start "-" #bit_end);		\
> +PMU_RANGE_RESV(name, attr_var, bit_start, bit_end)
> +
> +#define PMU_RANGE_RESV(name, attr_var, bit_start, bit_end)		\
> +static u64 event_get_##name##_max(void)					\
> +{									\
> +	int bits = (bit_end) - (bit_start) + 1;				\
> +	return ((0x1ULL << (bits - 1ULL)) - 1ULL) |			\
> +		(0xFULL << (bits - 4ULL));				\
> +}									\
> +static u64 event_get_##name(struct perf_event *event)			\
> +{									\
> +	return (event->attr.attr_var >> (bit_start)) &			\
> +		event_get_##name##_max();				\
> +}

I still don't like the names.

EVENT_GETTER_AND_FORMAT()
EVENT_RESERVED()

?

It's not clear to me the max routine is useful in general. Can't we just do:

> +#define EVENT_RESERVED(name, attr_var, bit_start, bit_end)		\
> +static u64 event_get_##name(struct perf_event *event)		\
> +{									\
> +	return (event->attr.attr_var >> (bit_start)) &			\
> +		((0x1ULL << ((bit_end) - (bit_start) + 1)) - 1ULL);	\
> +}


cheers
--
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/