linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH V5 4/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: add new data structures for free running counters

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: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077538041CE@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:46:49 +0000
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 4/8] perf/x86/intel/uncore: add new data structures
 for free running counters

> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:00:58PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:24:17PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > > Oh, think a bit more.
> > > > > I think we cannot do the same thing as we did for CPU PMU's fixed
> > > counters.
> > > > >
> > > > > The counters here are free running counters. They cannot be
> start/stop.
> > > >
> > > > Yes free running counter have completely different semantics. They
> > > > need a separate event code.
> > >
> > > The only thing that matters is if they count the same thing or not.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > There is NO event available on the GPs, that is exactly the same as
> > the free-running counters.
> >
> > For example, the BW free-running counters count the requests associated
> > with writes and completions.
> > The most similar events on the GPs are DATA_REQ_{OF,BY}_CPU.* events.
> > Except that some of their sub-events count requests which not completions.
> > There are also other minor differences.
> > So we don't have alternative events for the free-running counters.
> > I think we have to use 0xff.
> 
> OK, but explicitly mention this as the reason for having to invent event
> codes. Them being fixed purpose or free running isn't a valid reason for
> that.

Sure, I will add it in V6.

Thanks,
Kan