[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080223110158.62a3ad6e.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:01:58 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, sandmann@...hat.com,
tglx@...x.de, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: add the debugfs interface for the sysprof tool
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200 "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if
> > your distributor already did it for you.
> >
> > Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which
> >
> > a) is woefully misnamed and
> >
> > b) is racy and
> >
> > c) will disrupt oprofile if it is being used. And vice versa.
>
> I wonder if sysprof should hook to the same interrupt as oprofile then?
oprofile uses register_timer_hook() for its oh-crap-nothing-else-works
fallback iirc. It's a useful fallback: I used it a few centuries ago on
some el-cheapo VIA CPU-based thing we had at Digeo.
It's unclear to me whether all this stuff works with NO_HZ=y, btw. Didn't
we just lose the regular timer interrupts which these clients depend upon?
--
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