linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A mechanism for efficient support for per-function metrics

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: <b4302bc7-f2c2-4105-a39e-57a60aa242ff@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:23:19 +0000
From: Mark Barnett <mark.barnett@....com>
To: James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>
Cc: ben.gainey@....com, deepak.surti@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
 will@...nel.org, james.clark@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 adrian.hunter@...el.com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
 namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A mechanism for efficient support for per-function
 metrics

On 1/22/25 16:47, James Clark wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/01/2025 12:01 pm, mark.barnett@....com wrote:
>> From: Mark Barnett <mark.barnett@....com>
>>
>> This patch introduces the concept of an alternating sample rate to perf
>> core and provides the necessary basic changes in the tools to activate
>> that option.
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Changes since v1:
>>   - Rebased onto perf-tools-next, as per request from Ian Rogers.
>>   - Removed unnecessary code that truncated period_left to 0 and 
>> restarted
>>     the PMU.
>>   - Renamed variables to use the shorter 'alt_period' instead of
>>     'alterantive_period'.
>>   - Added patch #5 that addresses an issue in the x86 and PowerPC 
>> drivers that
>>     caused the opposite period to be reported in the sample record.
> 
> It sounds like it would be better if patch 5 comes first otherwise the 
> feature is introduced as broken.
> 
> 

Thanks, James. I'll re-order them with the next submission.

Mark