summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/tools/perf/pmu-events/arch/x86/nehalemep/frontend.json
blob: e5e21e03444d7b2b286556d2d06526453dfe833f (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
[
    {
        "EventCode": "0xD0",
        "Counter": "0,1,2,3",
        "UMask": "0x1",
        "EventName": "MACRO_INSTS.DECODED",
        "SampleAfterValue": "2000000",
        "BriefDescription": "Instructions decoded"
    },
    {
        "EventCode": "0xA6",
        "Counter": "0,1,2,3",
        "UMask": "0x1",
        "EventName": "MACRO_INSTS.FUSIONS_DECODED",
        "SampleAfterValue": "2000000",
        "BriefDescription": "Macro-fused instructions decoded"
    },
    {
        "EventCode": "0x19",
        "Counter": "0,1,2,3",
        "UMask": "0x1",
        "EventName": "TWO_UOP_INSTS_DECODED",
        "SampleAfterValue": "2000000",
        "BriefDescription": "Two Uop instructions decoded"
    }
]
iff)
dmaengine: pl330: fix double lock
The static bug finder EBA (http://www.iagoabal.eu/eba/) reported the following double-lock bug: Double lock: 1. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at pl330_free_chan_resources:2236; 2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after; 3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753; 4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505. I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski. First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'. NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes `list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock', whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by `pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly `pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under `pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'. Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and `pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from `pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from `pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of `pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points. Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu> Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'security/selinux/ss/services.c')