linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf mem amd: Scan all PMUs instead of just core ones

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:   Wed, 14 Jun 2023 09:28:10 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
To:     Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
        adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
        james.clark@....com, alisaidi@...zon.com, leo.yan@...aro.org,
        maddy@...ux.ibm.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sandipan.das@....com,
        ananth.narayan@....com, santosh.shukla@....com,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] perf mem amd: Scan all PMUs instead of just core ones

>> @@ -165,7 +173,7 @@ static void perf_mem_events__print_unsupport_hybrid(struct perf_mem_event *e,
>>         char sysfs_name[100];
>>         struct perf_pmu *pmu = NULL;
>>
>> -       while ((pmu = perf_pmus__scan_core(pmu)) != NULL) {
>> +       while ((pmu = perf_mem_scan_next_pmu(pmu)) != NULL) {
> 
> It was my mistake to optimize this,

Not really. I mean, there was already a bug which just got exacerbated.

> I think we can just go back to:
> perf_pmus__scan(pmu)
> which would remove a lot of the weak/macros etc. here. We can have a
> comment as to why this is scan not scan_core, because of AMD. I plan
> to further improve overhead of PMUs so I'm not worried about losing
> the small performance win from this.

Sure. Let me do that.

Thanks,
Ravi