[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070625210647.GB15258@atjola.homenet>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:06:47 +0200
From: Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, eranian@....hp.com,
mingo@...e.hu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
levon@...ementarian.org, perfmon@...ali.hpl.hp.com,
oprofile-list@...ts.sourceforge.net, wcohen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Always probe the NMI watchdog
On 2007.06.25 21:36:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
> >
> > Bj__rn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de> wrote:
> > > The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> > > probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
> >
> > So... what's the status of this lot?
> >
> > I've just merged this patch and the second one:
> >
> > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Reserve the right performance counter for the Intel
> > PerfMon NMI watchdog Message-ID: <20070620183551.GC3251@...ola.homenet>
> >
> > but there was no followup discussion afaict.
> >
> > Andi, Stephane: acks?
>
> Yes, although I'm still a little uneasy about the always probe one.
>
> > If acked, do we agree that this is 2.6.22 material?
>
> The first (always probe) is probably .22 material, but needs more testing
> first.
Hm, without the second, I expect OProfile to break when the watchdog is
enabled. Alternatively to the patch I sent, we could revert the change
that makes it use perfctr1 instead of perfctr0. Would you prefer that?
Björn
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists