linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/topology: Fix AMD core count

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160320103946.GL6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:39:46 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, bp@...en8.de,
	aherrmann@...e.com, jencce.kernel@...il.com,
	Rui Huang <ray.huang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/topology: Fix AMD core count

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 10:24:59AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Unfortunately that will break stuff in event/amd/core.c, ras/mce_amd_inj.c
> which rely on the AMD interpretation of c->x86_max_cores.

So the AMD NB stuff in events/amd/core.c is only for Fam10, Fam15 got
its own uncore driver. (Fam10 had the uncore events through the same
counters as the core PMU with with 'fun' constraints).

And since Fam10 isn't affected by this change in x86_max_cores, this
_should_ work out, IF that NB code knows to switch off properly when not
required.