linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

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: <20170423135559.GA23073@krava>
Date:   Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:55:59 +0200
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/7] perf/x86/intel: Record branch type

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 08:07:50PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:

SNIP

>  
> +#define X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX	16
> +
> +static int
> +common_branch_type(int type)
> +{
> +	int i, mask;
> +	const int branch_map[X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX] = {
> +		PERF_BR_CALL,		/* X86_BR_CALL */
> +		PERF_BR_RET,		/* X86_BR_RET */
> +		PERF_BR_SYSCALL,	/* X86_BR_SYSCALL */
> +		PERF_BR_SYSRET,		/* X86_BR_SYSRET */
> +		PERF_BR_INT,		/* X86_BR_INT */
> +		PERF_BR_IRET,		/* X86_BR_IRET */
> +		PERF_BR_JCC,		/* X86_BR_JCC */
> +		PERF_BR_JMP,		/* X86_BR_JMP */
> +		PERF_BR_IRQ,		/* X86_BR_IRQ */
> +		PERF_BR_IND_CALL,	/* X86_BR_IND_CALL */
> +		PERF_BR_NONE,		/* X86_BR_ABORT */
> +		PERF_BR_NONE,		/* X86_BR_IN_TX */
> +		PERF_BR_NONE,		/* X86_BR_NO_TX */
> +		PERF_BR_CALL,		/* X86_BR_ZERO_CALL */
> +		PERF_BR_NONE,		/* X86_BR_CALL_STACK */
> +		PERF_BR_IND_JMP,	/* X86_BR_IND_JMP */
> +	};
> +
> +	type >>= 2; /* skip X86_BR_USER and X86_BR_KERNEL */
> +	mask = ~(~0 << 1);

is that a fancy way to get 1 into the mask? what do I miss?

> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < X86_BR_TYPE_MAP_MAX; i++) {
> +		if (type & mask)
> +			return branch_map[i];

I wonder some bit search would be faster in here, but maybe not big deal

jirka

> +
> +		type >>= 1;
> +	}
> +
> +	return PERF_BR_NONE;
> +}
> +
>  /*