linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

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: <20140424112715.GQ11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:27:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] perf/x86/uncore: modularize Intel uncore driver

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:36:01PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Most of hardware specific codes in the Intel uncore driver are for
> > SandyBridge/IvyBridge/Haswell. Uncore subsystem in these CPUs are
> > similar. One module per CPU type means we have to duplicate lots of
> > code. I don't think it's a good idea.
> >
> Then, at least split nhm_ex from the rest. It is very big.

Aren't the EX parts in general far more complex and different from the
EP parts? Or will the SNB/IVB/HSW-EX parts also be similar again? (this
would be a good thing).

But yes, it makes sense to at least split the EP and EX parts, and split
where the families are different.
--
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/