linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Provide alias for IIO free-running boxes on SKX

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: <c0364c60-c812-514c-aa4b-6f268559f718@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Sep 2018 14:08:22 +0800
From:   "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, eranian@...gle.com,
        kan.liang@...el.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Provide alias for IIO
 free-running boxes on SKX

One week nearly passed, I guess there is no any objections for this 
patch from community. :)

Thanks
Jin Yao

On 9/4/2018 3:45 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2018 3:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 06:58:17PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
>>> root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
>>> uncore_iio_0
>>> uncore_iio_1
>>> uncore_iio_2
>>> uncore_iio_3
>>> uncore_iio_4
>>> uncore_iio_5
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_0
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_1
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_2
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_3
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_4
>>> uncore_iio_free_running_5
>>
>>> root@skx /sys/devices# ls | grep uncore_iio
>>> uncore_iio_0
>>> uncore_iio_1
>>> uncore_iio_2
>>> uncore_iio_3
>>> uncore_iio_4
>>> uncore_iio_5
>>> uncore_iio_cbdma
>>> uncore_iio_mcp0
>>> uncore_iio_mcp1
>>> uncore_iio_pcie0
>>> uncore_iio_pcie1
>>> uncore_iio_pcie2
>>
>> I think I'm ok with that, except of course for people that have
>> "free_running_#" in their scripts now and will to wtf when they upgrade
>> their kernel.
>>
>> Do we care about them?
>>
> 
> Yes, that may be a potential issue but maybe it's not since we really 
> don't know if some people have used uncore_iio_free_running_# in their 
> scripts or not.
> 
> I write this patch is because I always forget the meaning of 
> uncore_iio_free_running_# so I have to go back to check the document 
> "Intel Xeon Processor Scalable Memory Family Uncore Performance 
> Monitoring" again and again to find the box definition. I guess other 
> people may have similar trouble.
> 
> Maybe we wait some time to see more feedback from community?
> 
> Thanks
> Jin Yao