linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/intel_rdt and perf/x86: Fix lack of coordination with perf

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]

Message-ID: <20180802201312.GS2494@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2018 22:13:12 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
        mingo@...hat.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com, gavin.hindman@...el.com,
        jithu.joseph@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] x86/intel_rdt and perf/x86: Fix lack of coordination
 with perf

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 01:06:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 12:54 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> I totally understand not wanting to fill the tree with code hijacking
> >> the raw PMU.  Is your reaction to this really around not wanting to
> >> start down the slippery slope that ends up with lots of raw PMU "owners"?
> > That and the fact that multiple owner directly contradicts what perf set
> > out to do, provide resource arbitration for the PMU.
> > 
> > Not being able to use both perf and this resctl thing at the same time
> > is utter crap. You will not get special dispensation.
> 
> Is there something we could do in the middle, like have perf itself be
> in charge of doing all the programming, but the psuedo-locking could
> still _read_ the counters?

perf has all of that.