linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] perf: Add SNOOP_PEER flag to perf mem data struct

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]

Message-ID: <20220424114302.GB978927@leoy-ThinkPad-X240s>
Date:   Sun, 24 Apr 2022 19:43:02 +0800
From:   Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To:     Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Ali Saidi <alisaidi@...zon.com>, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
        Nick.Forrington@....com, acme@...nel.org,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, andrew.kilroy@....com,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, german.gomez@....com,
        james.clark@....com, john.garry@...wei.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        kjain@...ux.ibm.com, lihuafei1@...wei.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] perf: Add SNOOP_PEER flag to perf mem data struct

On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 05:53:28AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> > Except SNOOPX_FWD means a no modified cache snooping, it also means it's
> > a cache conherency from *remote* socket.  This is quite different from we
> > define SNOOPX_PEER, which only snoop from peer CPU or clusters.
> > 
> > If no objection, I prefer we could keep the new snoop type SNOOPX_PEER,
> > this would be easier for us to distinguish the semantics and support the
> > statistics for SNOOPX_FWD and SNOOPX_PEER separately.
> > 
> > I overlooked the flag SNOOPX_FWD, thanks a lot for Kan's reminding.
> 
> Yes seems better to keep using a separate flag if they don't exactly match.
> 
> It's not that we're short on flags anyways.

Thanks for confirmation.

Leo