linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf pmu: Improve CPU core PMU HW event list ordering

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]

Date:   Mon, 3 Aug 2020 14:23:56 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
CC:     Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, <will@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] perf pmu: Improve CPU core PMU HW event list
 ordering

On 03/08/2020 13:54, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git
>>
>> Please let me know - it would be useful for any dev during the merge window.
> So, I'm now pushing things directly to Linus, but just the tooling part,
> the branch to do development on is:
> 
>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git perf/core
> 
> At some point I think we'll have a git/perf-tools/perf-tools.git, just
> like tip, but for now, please use the one above.
> 
> My perf/core in the past was rebaseable, I did changes in it after
> publishing, trying to have solid bisectability, since I process patch by
> patch doing tests on it when we noticed problems, prior to pushing to
> Ingo for tip.
> 
> Now I am making perf/core non-rebaseable, I push things there
> periodically, tagging what is there with the test results, see:
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tag/?h=perf-tools-tests-2020-07-17
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git/tag/?h=perf-tools-tests-2020-07-02
> 
> I'll try and tag today's state of that tree, which I did tests already
> but since v5.8 was released, I merged it there and will retest and tag
> the test results.
> 
> The tmp.perf/core one is an experiment in making what I have in my local
> tree available for more bleeding edge things that are being done, say in
> that metrics effort, etc, but I think I'll stop that, since, as your
> message shows, it is causing confusion.
> 
> I did this because these tests take quite some time and sometimes I have
> to fix things and restart it, rinse, repeat.
> 
> So please use:
> 
>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git perf/core
> 

If it makes sense, it could be useful to have this included in the 
MAINTAINERS file. That's for forgetful people like me :)

> I'll further automate all this so that we have a more regular cadence of
> updates to perf/core, say every two days or so.
> 
> If you have changes that touch both the kernel and userspace, the kernel
> bits need to go via tip, the tooling via the perf tree, that for now
> (well, it has been like that for quite a long time) is my tree.

ok, thanks for the detailed response.

> 
> Arch specific kernel bits have been going via the arch trees for quite a
> while, I think.
> 
> - Arnaldo
> .

Cheers,
john