linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3 1/6] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add Sapphire Rapids server support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Jun 2021 09:06:14 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, eranian@...gle.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, jolsa@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        yao.jin@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/6] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Add Sapphire Rapids server
 support



On 6/30/2021 5:39 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 11:13:58AM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Intel Sapphire Rapids supports a discovery mechanism, that allows an
>> uncore driver to discover the different components ("boxes") of the
>> chip.
>>
>> All the generic information of the uncore boxes should be retrieved from
>> the discovery tables. This has been enabled with the commit edae1f06c2cd
>> ("perf/x86/intel/uncore: Parse uncore discovery tables"). Add
>> use_discovery to indicate the case. The uncore driver doesn't need to
>> hard code the generic information for each uncore box.
>>
>> But we still need to enable various functionality that cannot be
>> directly discovered. This is done here.
>>   - Add a meaningful name for each uncore block.
>>   - Add CHA filter support.
>>   - The layout of the control registers for each uncore block is a little
>>     bit different from the generic one. Set the platform specific format
>>     and ops. Expose the common ops which can be reused.
>>   - Add a fixed counter for IMC
> 
> Shouldn't this all be individual patches, one per new feature added?
> There's a lot of stuff happening all at once here, maybe the perf
> maintainers are more lax about this type of thing than other
> subsystems...
> 

These features are similar to the previous platforms. The implementation 
is very similar, so I put them in one patch.

I will split the patch and make one patch for each unit in v4.

Thanks,
Kan