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]
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2017 13:29:18 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <>
To:     John Garry <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] perf jevents: add support for arch recommended

On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 03:20:14PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 13:36, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 12:13:16AM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> > > For some architectures (like arm64), there are architecture-
> > > defined recommended events. Vendors may not be obliged to
> > > follow the recommendation and may implement their own pmu
> > > event for a specific event code.
> > > 
> > > This patch adds support for parsing events from arch-defined
> > > recommended JSONs, and then fixing up vendor events when
> > > they have implemented these events as recommended.
> > 
> > in the previous patch you added the vendor support, so
> > you have arch|vendor|platform key for the event list
> > and perf have the most current/local event list
> > 
> > why would you need to fix it? if there's new event list,
> > the table gets updated, perf is rebuilt.. I'm clearly
> > missing something ;-)
> The 2 patches are quite separate. In the first patch, I just added support
> for the vendor subdirectory.
> So this patch is not related to rebuilding when adding a new event list or
> dependency checking.
> Here we are trying to allow the vendor to just specify that an event is
> supported as standard in their platform, without duplicating all the
> standard event fields in their JSON. When processing the vendor JSONs, the
> jevents tool can figure which events are standard and create the proper
> event entries in the pmu events table, referencing the architecture JSON.

I think we should keep this simple and mangle this with some pointer logic

now you have arch/vendor/platform directory structure.. why don't
you add events for every such directory? I understand there will
be duplications, but we already have them for other archs and it's
not big deal:

	[ perf]$ grep -r L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS pmu-events/arch/*
	pmu-events/arch/x86/broadwell/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/haswell/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/broadwellde/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/haswellx/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/skylake/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/skylakex/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",
	pmu-events/arch/x86/broadwellx/cache.json:        "EventName": "L2_RQSTS.DEMAND_DATA_RD_MISS",


Powered by blists - more mailing lists