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  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]
Date:   Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:54:43 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
cc:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 1/5] perf/x86/intel/uncore: customized pmu event read
 for client IMC uncore

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> > > -	if (event->hw.idx >= UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
> > > +	if (event->hw.idx == UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
> > >  		shift = 64 - uncore_fixed_ctr_bits(box);
> > >  	else
> > >  		shift = 64 - uncore_perf_ctr_bits(box); diff --git
> > > a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c
> > > b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c
> > > index db1127c..9d5cd3f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snb.c
> > > @@ -498,6 +498,30 @@ static void snb_uncore_imc_event_del(struct
> > perf_event *event, int flags)
> > >  	snb_uncore_imc_event_stop(event, PERF_EF_UPDATE);  }
> > >
> > > +static void snb_uncore_imc_event_read(struct perf_event *event) {
> > > +	struct intel_uncore_box *box = uncore_event_to_box(event);
> > > +	u64 prev_count, new_count, delta;
> > > +	int shift;
> > > +
> > > +	if (event->hw.idx >= UNCORE_PMC_IDX_FIXED)
> > 
> > And this needs to be >= because?
> 
> Patch 5/5 will clean up the client IMC uncore.
> Before that, we still need it to make client IMC uncore work.
> 
> This patch isolates the >= case for client IMC uncore.

Fair enough. A comment to that effect (even when removed later) would have
avoided that question.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists