linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single

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: <20161201163755.GM3092@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2016 17:37:55 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
Cc:     Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Michael Petlan <mpetlan@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf/x86/intel/uncore: pmu->type->single_fixed question

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:34:43PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com> writes:
> > >
> > > Maybe we should create a clocktick box for client uncore to fix it.
> > 
> > That would break all the user space code that uses the existing format.
> > 
> OK.
> If so, I think we should remove the non-exist events for non-first boxes.
> 
> What do you think about the patch as below?
> 
> Andi? Jirka?

Urgh, more lines for ugly :-(

I really would prefer to move the thing to its own PMU.