linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events arm64: Add hip08 implementation defined PMU core events

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a6a7e027-7bec-8e3a-bd5f-910392fc3080@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:07:41 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gklkml16@...il.com>
CC:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf vendor events arm64: Add hip08 implementation
 defined PMU core events

On 25/10/2017 11:06, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:59 PM, John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> #Family-model,Version,Filename,EventType
>>>> 0x00000000420f5160,v1,cavium,core
>>>> 0x00000000420f5161,v1,cavium,core
>>>
>>>
>>> certainly, there is Part number(PartNum, bits [15:4] ) change from
>>> thunderx2 to thunderx3.
>>> thunderx3 should have its own json file describing all its supported
>>> events.
>>> same applies to other SoCs as well.
>>>
>>> IIUC, the idea of ignoring Revision and Variants is that, the PMU
>>> design/version wont change across Revisions and Variants.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Ganapatrao,
>>
>> Right, I should have modified the part num for my illustration, but I am
>> still concerned. Please see my example in the other mail and check what I am
>> missing.
>

Hi Ganapatrao,

> ok, then my original naming was more appropriate.

It was better.

For now, until we introduce > 1 json per vendor, we're fine with the 
structure as-is.

> i.e have josn files defined in SoC directory, instead of having single
> vendor directory for all SoC json files.
>
> like,
>           pmu-events/arch/arm64/thunderx2
>           pmu-events/arch/arm64/thunderx3
>           pmu-events/arch/arm64/hip08
>           pmu-events/arch/arm64/hip09

We're now looking (slowly) at the task of factoring out the common, 
ARM-recommended events, and this directory structure issue is not a 
blocker, but clarification would be nice.

Cheers,
John