linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs

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]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fVZvprNLZiO0baQ0cBgJE1qXjqqHRZvWz9YvU3FHUJHiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:36:13 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Dhananjay Ugwekar <Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, 
	namhyung@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, 
	jolsa@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, 
	tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, 
	kees@...nel.org, gustavoars@...nel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com, 
	oleksandr@...alenko.name, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, 
	ananth.narayan@....com, gautham.shenoy@....com, kprateek.nayak@....com, 
	ravi.bangoria@....com, sandipan.das@....com, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/11] Add per-core RAPL energy counter support for AMD CPUs

On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 1:05 AM Dhananjay Ugwekar
<Dhananjay.Ugwekar@....com> wrote:
...
> Sounds great!, I'll be happy to refactor the RAPL code to use the event.cpumask
> feature to add the per-core energy counter. Also, please let me know if you need
> any help from me on the perf tool side as well.

I hope to send out some patches soon. One thought I have is that
"event.cpumask" is probably less intention revealing the "event.cpus"
as a name, so I'm going to code assuming the suffix is ".cpus" but
obviously we can change it to ".cpumask". To me the "mask" makes it
sound like we "and" the values with something, hence wanting to avoid
the confusion. There's much confusion in the area already, such as the
term "cpu map" that does not implement some kind of map.

Thanks,
Ian