linux-kernel - Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data

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:	Wed, 17 Feb 2016 23:31:41 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Harish Chegondi <harish.chegondi@...el.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 07/11] x86/perf/uncore: Track packages not per cpu data

On Wed, 17 Feb 2016, Andi Kleen wrote:

> > Do you have any data to back that up or is that just "believe" ?
> 
> I've seen systems with discontiguous apic ids before.
> 
> It is obvious if you consider setups with node hotplug.

Right, but if you have 1024 maximal cores and 
 
> BTW reading this thread you don't seem interested in any code review
> feedback, attacking everyone, not bothering to look up data sheets,

I did look up data sheets, but I assumed that IVB is the same. But that's what
reviews are for.

> not understanding the hardware you're changing the driver for, etc.

Oh well.

> Why do you even bother to post the patches?

Just to annoy you.

Thanks,

	tglx