linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/amd: Make HW_CACHE_REFERENCES and HW_CACHE

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]

Message-ID: <20160916130119.GE16797@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date:   Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:01:19 +0100
From:   Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/amd: Make HW_CACHE_REFERENCES and
 HW_CACHE_MISSES measure L2

On Thu, 25 Aug, at 05:35:14AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> (dropping stable@ from CC)
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:27:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > They're not meant to be comparable between machines. I wouldn't even
> > compare the LLC numbers between two different Intel parts.
> > 
> > These events are meant to profile a workload on the machine you run them
> > on. Big cache-miss/ref ratios indicate you loose performance because of
> > the memory subsystem and or data structure layout.
> 
> Ah ok, then I've misunderstood Matt's justification in the commit message.
> 
> FWIW: Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>

Ping? Tip folks: are you OK to apply this?