linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: 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]

Date:   Sat, 29 Sep 2018 07:23:55 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     fenghua.yu@...el.com, tony.luck@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
        acme@...nel.org, gavin.hindman@...el.com, jithu.joseph@...el.com,
        dave.hansen@...el.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/6] perf and x86/intel_rdt: Fix lack of coordination
 with perf

On 9/27/2018 11:58 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 10:39:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Maintainers,
>>
>> Sorry for replying late.
>>
>>> On 9/20/2018 7:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 10:29:05AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> Reinette Chatre (6):
>>>>>   perf/core: Add sanity check to deal with pinned event failure
>>>>>   perf/x86: Add helper to obtain performance counter index
>>>>>   x86/intel_rdt: Remove local register variables
>>>>>   x86/intel_rdt: Create required perf event attributes
>>>>>   x86/intel_rdt: Use perf infrastructure for measurements
>>>>>   x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements
>>>>>
>>>>>  Documentation/x86/intel_rdt_ui.txt          |  22 +-
>>>>>  arch/x86/events/core.c                      |  21 ++
>>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/perf_event.h           |   1 +
>>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_pseudo_lock.c | 372 ++++++++++++--------
>>>>>  kernel/events/core.c                        |   6 +
>>>>>  5 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 161 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, these look good, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could you please consider this series for inclusion into v4.19?
>>
>> So in principle I'm having no objections as this really is mostly a RDT
>> only issue.
>>
>> Peter, any objections against the Perf part of it, aside the core patch
>> which is an obvious fix?
> 
> Nope, look up a few lines to observe my Ack ;-)
> 

I interpreted Thomas and Peter's responses to mean that there are no
objections for this to be included in v4.19 as a fix.

If I understand the tip branches correctly the core patch seems to be
headed to v4.19 while the rest (excluding the final patch
"x86/intel_rdt: Re-enable pseudo-lock measurements") are headed to v4.20.

Have you decided against including this into v4.19 or did I
misunderstand the responses and/or branches?

Thank you for helping me to sort this out

Reinette