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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 14:59:31 +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, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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. Thinking more about it. The current code only supports the fixed one, right? So why would it deal with anything > FIXED? Thanks, tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists