[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081125110935.GF6703@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 12:09:35 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6.28-rc6] oprofile: "opcontrol --start" output two warnings
> if so, I think get_stagger() is a bit strange.
> it depend on caller cpu. then if PREEMPT=Y, it return radom result.
Even without PREEMPT it is random because there is no guarantee the
init code is executing on CPU 0
>
> I'm not sure about oprofile design.
> but if you are right, I think p4_fill_in_addresses shoudn't use smp_processor_id().
Correct.
>
> Am I missing any point?
No you're right. Always returning 0 in get_stagger() should be ok
I think, at least it wouldn't make anything worse.
Or perhaps figure out if the per cpu addresses are really needed,
if yes then this would need much more changes. But I hope
that would not be needed.
But someone should better test it, the P4 perfmon handling is certainly
hairy and I don't claim to understand all its intricate details.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com
--
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