linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] perf: a different approach to perf_rotate

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 3 Mar 2018 18:48:08 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] perf: a different approach to perf_rotate_context()

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 04:43:16PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> > In any case, there's a ton of conflict against the patches here:
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git/log/?h=perf/testing
> > 
> > And with those the idea was to move to a virtual time based scheduler
> > (basically schedule those flexible events that have the biggest lag --
> > that also solves 1).
> 
> Thanks for these information. I will study this approach. Maybe that is 
> our path to PMU sharing. 

So I'm really not convinced on that whole PMU sharing.

> What's is the status of this work? Would it 
> land in 4.17? 

These patches might make 4.17, they got held up because of the whole
meltdown/spectre crap and I need to get back to them.