[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090117155635.GC21604@erda.amd.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:56:35 +0100
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To: Tim Blechmann <tim@...ngt.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rc9: oprofile regression
On 17.01.09 16:09:23, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > > however, trying to apply this patch to 2.6.28, the behavior is the same
> > > as before (one NMI) ... so possibly, it is a combination of two bugs,
> > > with similar symptoms ...
> >
> > Tim, could you revert 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea too?
> >
> > If this not helps, last chance is
> > 59512900baab03c5629f2ff5efad1d5d4e682ece, but this seems to be save.
>
> i tried to revert both commits, however the behavior doesn't seem to
> change. will try to apply the working patch to the child commits, maybe
> i can find something interesting ...
Hmm, strange. Actually 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea fixed
a similiar bug, see here:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11908
Your patch with 2.6.28, does:
grep NMI /proc/interrupts
returns exactly 1 NMI per core or some more?
>
> best, tim
>
> btw, i am not very familiar with kernel programming, but is it safe to
> have `static u64 *reset_value' uninitialized, or should it be
> initialized to NULL?
External and static variables should be gaaranteed to be initialized
to zero. Only local variables are uninitialized.
-Robert
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
email: robert.richter@....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