linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM RMIDs

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: <20141110204353.GD1292@console-pimps.org>
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 20:43:53 +0000
From:	Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM
 RMIDs

On Fri, 07 Nov, at 01:06:12PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:23:21PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * Exchange the RMID of a group of events.
> > + */
> > +static unsigned int
> > +intel_cqm_xchg_rmid(struct perf_event *group, unsigned int rmid)
> > +{
> > +	struct perf_event *event;
> > +	unsigned int old_rmid = group->hw.cqm_rmid;
> > +	struct list_head *head = &group->hw.cqm_group_entry;
> > +
> > +	lockdep_assert_held(&cache_mutex);
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If our RMID is being deallocated, perform a read now.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (__rmid_valid(old_rmid) && !__rmid_valid(rmid)) {
> > +		struct intel_cqm_count_info info;
> > +
> > +		local64_set(&group->count, 0);
> > +		info.event = group;
> > +
> > +		preempt_disable();
> > +		smp_call_function_many(&cqm_cpumask, __intel_cqm_event_count,
> > +				       &info, 1);
> > +		preempt_enable();
> > +	}
> 
> This suffers the same issue as before, why not call that one function
> and not reimplement it?
> 
> Also, I don't think we'd ever swap an rmid for another valid one, right?
> So we could do this read/update unconditionally.

No, we never swap a valid RMID for another valid one, but we do make a
invalid -> valid transition, so doing the read wouldn't make sense
in that situation.

-- 
Matt Fleming, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/