[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1410210003300.5251@pianoman.cluster.toy>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 00:06:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] CR4 handling improvements
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This little series tightens up rdpmc permissions. With it applied,
> rdpmc can only be used if a perf_event is actually mmapped. For now,
> this is only really useful for seccomp.
So just to be difficult...
I am aware of at least one group who is doing low-latency performance
measures using rdpmc on Linux.
They start the counters manually by poking the MSRs directly (bypassing
perf_event_open()).
They use rdpmc, grateful for the fact that currently CR4 is set up so they
can do this w/o patching the kernel.
These patches of course would break this use case...
Vince
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists