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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20161028154259.GM5806@leverpostej>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 16:42:59 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Jan Glauber <jan.glauber@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] Cavium ThunderX uncore PMU support

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 04:17:49PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:23:51PM +0200, Jan Glauber wrote:
> > > 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?
> > > 
> > > OK, so using perf_invalid_context and "-a" seems to work.
> > > 
> > > But I must say that I hate that from a user perspective. The user needs to know about
> > > the type of PMU behind the event and then provide "-a" or get a "<not supported"
> > > as counter value?
> > 
> > Sure, but in the interest of getting *something* merged, can we start
> > off using perf_invalid_context and then have the discussion about whether
> > or not this can be extended later on, please? If your PMU is a shared
> > resource amongst CPUs, it maybe that all you want is a better error
> > message from the perf tool (but again, this can come later!).
> 
> If that is the only obstacle I can repost with perf_sw_context (or do a
> follow-up patch). After all it works, it is just "clueless" people like
> me that are not aware of the required switches.

Please send a version using perf_invalid_context (which I assume is what
you meant above).

Thanks,
Mark.