linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf vendor events arm64: Add Cortex-A57 and Cortex-A72 events

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:   Mon, 13 May 2019 12:19:30 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.garry@...wei.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "moderated list:ARM PMU PROFILING AND DEBUGGING" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf vendor events arm64: Add Cortex-A57 and
 Cortex-A72 events

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 04:47:04PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> diff --git a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/mapfile.csv b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/mapfile.csv
> index 59cd8604b0bd..69a73957e35c 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/mapfile.csv
> +++ b/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/arm64/mapfile.csv
> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
>  #
>  #Family-model,Version,Filename,EventType
>  0x00000000410fd03[[:xdigit:]],v1,arm/cortex-a53,core
> +0x00000000411fd07[[:xdigit:]],v1,arm/cortex-a57-a72,core

The 4-bit variant field should be 0x0, not 0x1. In fact, I think we could do
the same for the revision field too and use 0x0 instead of [[:xdigit:]] for
Cortex-A53, no? Our implementation of get_cpuid_str() masks these out for us.

Am I missing something?

Will