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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:22:47 +0300 From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>, x86@...nel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/3] perf/x86: Add new event for AUX output counter index Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com> writes: > On 10/09/21 7:29 pm, Liang, Kan wrote: >> >> >> On 9/10/2021 12:04 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 01:45:22PM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote: >>>> On 9/7/2021 12:39 PM, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>> >>>>> @@ -4494,8 +4500,16 @@ static int intel_pmu_check_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 value) >>>>> return intel_pmu_has_bts_period(event, value) ? -EINVAL : 0; >>>>> } >>>>> +static void intel_aux_output_init(void) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + /* Refer also intel_pmu_aux_output_match() */ >>>>> + if (x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_output_pt_available) >>>>> + x86_pmu.assign = intel_pmu_assign_event; >>>>> +} >>>> >>>> For a hybrid machine, x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_output_pt_available is always >>>> cleared. We probably need the PMU specific >>>> pmu->intel_cap.pebs_output_pt_available here. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> static int intel_pmu_aux_output_match(struct perf_event *event) >>>>> { >>>>> + /* intel_pmu_assign_event() is needed, refer intel_aux_output_init() */ >>>>> if (!x86_pmu.intel_cap.pebs_output_pt_available) >>>>> return 0; >>>>> >>>> >>>> For a hybrid machine, this always return 0. I think we need to fix it first? >>> >>> AFAICT the patch is correct for !hybrid, and the hybrid PT muck can then >>> also fix this up, right? >>> >> >> Yes, for !hybrid, the patch is good. >> >> Since PEBS via PT is temporarily disabled for hybrid for now, the patch set should not bring any issues with hybrid either. >> The hybrid PT can be fixed separately. > > I don't have much time to look at the hybrid case right now. > > Would it be OK to go ahead with these patches? I'll deal with the PEBS-via-PT on hybrid. As it stands right now, this patchset is good. Regards, -- Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists