linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 1/1] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add support for Intel SKL client uncore

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:	Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:03:18 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
cc:	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/1] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add support for Intel SKL
 client uncore

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > > The stop of the box1 events disables the whole machinery on that
> > > > node and therefor the box0 event is wreckaged as well. Hmm?
> > > >
> > > Right. How about check the SKL_UNC_PERF_GLOBAL_CTL in enable_event?
> > > If it's cleared, we can reset it there. The drawback is that there
> > > will be an extra rdmsrl and a possible wrmsrl.
> > 
> > Well, that does not buy anything as you cannot disable the thing at all, unless
> > you have refcounting. And that refcounting needs to be in the 'type'
> > struct and that would probably be some real pain to implement.
> > 
> > The question is whether we need enable/disable at all. If the type is
> > initialized we enable it and on exit we disable it. Ditto on cpu hotplug - which
> > is also used for init to enable all nodes.
> > 
> > So if there is no drawback in letting the thing enabled if no events are armed,
> > then we really can do w/o the enable/disable_box callbacks.
> > 
> There is no drawback in letting the thing enabled, but PERF_GLOBAL_CTL could
> be disabled after Package C7. I add the enable/disable thing to try to
> workaround it.

I don't see how that solves it. If a counter is active, then C7 will stop it
and you wont get anything useful from it after returning from C7. Or does an
active counter prevent C7?

> I once did the test on a SKL laptop. If the machine goes idle for a while,
> then the uncore counter will always return 0. For fixing it, we have to
> re-enable PERF_GLOBAL_CTL.

Hmm, but that does only help for new events after returning from C7, right?

> I think I made a typo in previous reply. I mean we can check it or just
> force rewrite the PERF_GLOBAL_CTL in enable_box. We don't need disable_box
> since there is no drawback in letting the thing enabled.

Sure, but then you can just unconditionally enable it. IOW, leave the enable
callback as is.

Thanks,

	tglx