linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] arm-cci: Group writes to counter

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 Jan 2016 10:48:23 +0000
From:	"Suzuki K. Poulose" <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	arm@...nel.org, punit.agrawal@....com, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 03/11] arm-cci: Group writes to counter

On 11/01/16 10:44, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 10:51:47AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> On 04/01/16 19:03, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 11:54:42AM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>>>> Add a helper to group the writes to PMU counter, this will be
>>>> used to delay setting the event period to pmu::pmu_enable()
>>>>
>>
>>>> +/* Write a value to a given set of counters */
>>>> +static void __pmu_write_counters(struct cci_pmu *cci_pmu, unsigned long *mask, u32 value)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for_each_set_bit(i, mask, cci_pmu->num_cntrs)
>>>> +		__pmu_write_counter(cci_pmu, value, i);
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> I don't understand this as-is. Why do all the counters have the same
>>> value?
>>
>> The only value we write to the counters is the period. This routine writes
>> a given value to a set of counters specified by the mask (not to be confused
>> with the PMU->hw_events->mask). This will help to group the writes to the counters,
>> especially since preparatory steps to write to a single counter itself is costly.
>> So, we do all the preparation only once for a batch of counters.
>>
>> The other option is to use hw_events->prev_count (which should be set before calling
>> the function) for each counter specified in the mask. I am fine with either of the
>> two.
>
> I think this would be clearer using prev_count.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter since we won't support sampling, but it would
> match the shape of other PMU drivers.

OK, will use that.

Thanks
Suzuki