linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 9/9] x86, perf: Move PMU ACK after LBR read

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]

Date:	Mon, 11 May 2015 18:23:54 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] x86, perf: Move PMU ACK after LBR read

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 12:22:47PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> 
> With Arch Perfmon v4 the PMU ack unfreezes the LBRs. So we need to do
> the PMU ack after the LBR reading, otherwise the LBRs would be polluted by the
> PMI handler.

Hmm, we should move these last three patches before the SKL enablement
patch no, otherwise things will misbehave -- say a bisection lands in
between.

/me shuffles patches.

> This is a minimal change. In principle the ACK could be moved much later.

Right, so the more complete change would be to use the new and improved
FREEZE_ON_PMI and reenable both the LBRs and the CTRs with the
STATUS_RESET MSR, right?

Does it make sense to have a new handle_irq() routine for that?
--
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/