[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100826152246.GN4879@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:22:46 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 01:18:29PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com> wrote:
> ...
> >
> > This could also be a race in the counter handling code, or we do not
> > proper count the number of handled counters. Maybe 2 counters actually
> > fired but we only noticed one counter and then accidentially cleared
> > the 2nd without processing it.
> >
> > -Robert
> >
>
> Any chance to get it tested on P4 machine since it has a bit
> different design?
Hmm, I take that back. I guess I can reproduce this on my i5 that I had
using Ingo's config.
Working on Robert's assumption, I added code to perf_event_intel.c that
said if handled !=0 just add one to it (IOW always process handled as 0 or
something >1). That seems to working good and catches the nmis that Ingo
was seeing.
I'll keep looking for the race condition to better fix it.
Cheers,
Don
--
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