[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100824172157.GE5723@lenovo>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:21:57 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
perfctrs
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:20:22PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 07:09:36PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > On 24.08.10 12:22:52, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > > Btw, guys, I fail to see how new nmi_watchdog work, we have
> > > default_do_nmi
> > > if (!(reason & 0xc0)) {
> > > if (notify_die(DIE_NMI, "nmi", regs, reason, 2, SIGINT) == == NOTIFY_STOP)
> > > return
> > > if (nmi_watchdog_tick(regs, reason))
> > > return
> > >
> > > but perf_event_nmi_handler returns NOTIFY_STOP when watchdog is perf event
> > > and nmi_watchdog_tick _never_ called, or (most probably) I miss something?
> >
> > The watchdog is disabled during profiling (perf and oprofile) by
> > calling disable_lapic_nmi_watchdog().
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> Huh? iirc Don have switched nmi watchdog to native perf subsystem, ie watchdog
> uses PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES event, letme check...
>
> -- Cyrill
False alarm, perf watchdog uses own handler. Sorry for noise ;)
-- Cyrill
--
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