linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 05/12] arm-cci: PMU: Add support for transactions

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: <20160105133703.GN6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 5 Jan 2016 14:37:03 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mark.rutland@....com, punit.agrawal@....com, arm@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/12] arm-cci: PMU: Add support for transactions

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:55:29AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> Thanks for that hint. Here is what I cam up with. We don't reschedule
> the events, all we need to do is group the writes to the counters. Hence
> we could as well add a flag for those events which need programming
> and perform the write in pmu::pmu_enable().

I'm still somewhat confused..

> Grouping the writes to counters can ammortise the cost of the operation
> on PMUs where it is expensive (e.g, CCI-500).

This rationale makes me think you want to reduce the number of counter
writes, not batch them per-se.

So why are you unconditionally writing all counters, instead of only
those that changed?
--
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/