linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V3] perf/x86/intel/uncore: remove nonexistent clockticks event for client uncore

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]

Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2017 15:43:53 +0000
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3] perf/x86/intel/uncore: remove nonexistent clockticks
 event for client uncore

> 
> > User observable change with the patch.
> > clockticks event is removed from CBOX. User may need to change their
> > script to use uncore_clock/clockticks/ instead.
> 
> I don't think we can do that and break everyone's scripts. Have to keep the
> old behavior, even though it is not ideal.
> 
> Or you fix the the uncore subsystem to support a separate attribute array for
> the first cbox.
> 

I once had a patch to only support clockticks for first box. 
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/1/477
But Peter think it's better to move it to its own PMU.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/1/484

Each solution has its own advantage and drawback. I'm OK for either of them.
I'm not sure what others prefer.

Peter? Ingo? What do you think?

Thanks,
Kan