linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] perf/x86: add syfs entry to disable HT bug workaround

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: <20140605125929.GH6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:59:29 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>,
	Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] perf/x86: add syfs entry to disable HT bug workaround

On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 02:55:05PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 12:16:01PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >> On 5 June 2014 11:19, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> > How would you know that you have a uniform workload from inside
> >> > the kernel?
> >>
> >> That's what I'm asking you ;-)
> >>
> >> >> Does cpu_sibling_map not give you some indication of whether HT is
> >> >> enabled? I think the topology_thread_cpumask() is the topology API for
> >> >> that. But I could most definitely be wrong. Hopefully someone on the
> >> >> Cc list will know.
> >> >>
> >> > Remember trying some of that, but when perf_event is initialized, those
> >> > masks are not yet setup properly.
> >>
> >> Oh, bummer.
> >
> > So we init perf very early to get nmi-watchdog up and running, but
> > there's no reason you cannot register a second initcall later and flip
> > the switch from it there.
> 
> and what initcall would that be?

Pretty much anything !early_initcall() is ran after SMP bringup iirc.

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped