linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter constraint

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: <20150527101136.GX3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 27 May 2015 12:11:36 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/11] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter
 constraint

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 02:01:04AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> But are you removing the incremental calls from the upper layer via
> x86_pmu.add()?
> If not, then you are saying the dynamic constraint you got for
> offcore_response, LBR
> or the HT workaround is still the best avail now.

sigh, see I knew I was missing something :/

So then for c->flag & DYNAMIC we should put and get again, right?
--
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/