linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Support vector and more extended registers in perf

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1121293d-777e-4c21-b1ad-d34516d2cd3a@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 08:57:15 +0800
From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
 tglx@...utronix.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, irogers@...gle.com,
 adrian.hunter@...el.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 ak@...ux.intel.com, zide.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12] Support vector and more extended registers in
 perf


On 6/17/2025 11:23 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>
> On 2025-06-17 10:29 a.m., Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 09:52:12AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>
>>> OK. So the sample_simd_reg_words actually has another meaning now.
>> Well, any simd field being non-zero means userspace knows about it. Sort
>> of an implicit flag.
> Yes, but the tool probably wouldn't to touch any simd fields if user
> doesn't ask for simd registers
>
>>> It's used as a flag to tell whether utilizing the old format.
>>>
>>> If so, I think it may be better to have a dedicate sample_simd_reg_flag
>>> field.
>>>
>>> For example,
>>>
>>> #define SAMPLE_SIMD_FLAGS_FORMAT_LEGACY		0x0
>>> #define SAMPLE_SIMD_FLAGS_FORMAT_WORDS		0x1
>>>
>>> 	__u8 sample_simd_reg_flags;
>>> 	__u8 sample_simd_reg_words;
>>> 	__u64 sample_simd_reg_intr;
>>> 	__u64 sample_simd_reg_user;
>>>
>>> If (sample_simd_reg_flags != 0) reclaims the XMM space for APX and SPP.
>>>
>>> Does it make sense?

Not sure if I missed some discussion, but are these fields only intended
for SIMD regs? What about the APX extended GPRs? Suppose APX eGPRs can
reuse the legacy XMM bitmaps in sample_regs_user/intr[47:32], but we need
an extra flag to distinguish it's XMM regs or APX eGPRs, maybe add an extra
bit sample_egpr_reg : 1 in sample_simd_reg_words, but the *simd* word in
the name would become ambiguous.


>> Not sure, it eats up a whole byte. Dapeng seemed to favour separate
>> intr/user vector width (although I'm not quite sure what the use would
>> be).

The reason that I prefer to add 2 separate "words" item is that user could
sample interrupt and user space SIMD regs (but with different bit-width)
simultaneously in theory, like "--intr-regs=YMM0, --user-regs=XMM0". 


>>
>> If you want an explicit bit, we might as well use one from __reserved_1,
>> we still have some left.
> OK. I may add a sample_simd_reg : 1 to explicitly tell kernel to utilize
> the sample_simd_reg_XXX.
>
> Thanks,
> Kan