linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20161020104417.GD10234@leverpostej>
Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:44:18 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jan Glauber <jglauber@...ium.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support

On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:37:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:30:36AM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > Note:
> > I'm using perf_sw_context in difference to perf_invalid_context
> > (see WARN_ON in perf_pmu_register). Reason is that with perf_invalid_context
> > add() is never called and the counter results are shown as "unsupported" by
> > perf. With perf_sw_context everything works as expected.
> 
> What?! All the uncore PMUs use perf_invalid_context. What doesn't work
> for you?

I think there's general confusion over the use of invalid context.
Perhaps we could clear that up with:

#define perf_uncore_context	perf_invalid_context

and

s/perf_hw_context/perf_cpu_hw_context/

Mark.