linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support

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: <20160916075523.GJ3380@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 08:55:24 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support

Hi Jan,

On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 11:11:32AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 04:04:59PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:24:20AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:21:02PM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > > This patch series provides access to various counters on the ThunderX SOC.
> > > > 
> > > > For details of the uncore implementation see patch #1.
> > > > 
> > > > Patches #2-5 add the various ThunderX specific PMUs.
> > > > 
> > > > As suggested I've put the files under drivers/perf/uncore. I would
> > > > prefer this location over drivers/bus because not all of the uncore
> > > > drivers are bus related.
> > > 
> > > What's the status of these patches? Were you planning to send a new
> > > version?
> >
> > I was half-way through with addressing Mark's review comments when
> > got side-tracked.
> > 
> > The principle question these patches raised remains open though in my
> > opinion, how to determine the socket a device belongs to.
> > 
> > There is no first-class interface to ask a device or the firmware
> > which socket the device lives on.
> > 
> > The options I see are:
> > A) Using NUMA node information, depends on CONFIG_NUMA
> > B) Decoding the socket bits of the PCI BAR address
> > C) Using PCI topology information
> > 
> > A is what I tried, but I agree that depending on CONFIG_NUMA is not a good
> > solution. B would be easy but looks not very future-proof. So option C
> > is what is left...
> 
> Sorry to go full circle on this, but "depends on NUMA" sounds better
> than deriving NUMA topology from PCI to me. The only worry I have is if
> the NUMA information ends up being insufficient in the long-term, and we
> end up with a mixture of the three options above in order to figure out
> the PMU topology.
> 
> As long as you're happy that the PMU:NUMA topology remains 1:1, then I
> have no objections. The moment you need extra hacks on the side, we should
> probably drop the NUMA dependency altogether and figure it out some other
> way.

Any news on this series, or did I miss a v3? I was hoping to have this in
for 4.9, but it seems to have stalled :(

Will