[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100827075132.GD22783@erda.amd.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:51:32 +0200
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
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 26.08.10 17:14:24, Don Zickus wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> index 4539b4b..d16ebd8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -738,6 +738,7 @@ again:
>
> inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
> ack = status;
> + intel_pmu_ack_status(ack);
Yes, not immediately ack'ing the status was suspect to me too. Though
it must then be the same counter that retriggers. Or, it is a cpu
bug. You could add a debug print of the status register for the case
the loop is reentered, would be interesting...
Thank for fixing this.
-Robert
>
> intel_pmu_lbr_read();
>
> @@ -766,8 +767,6 @@ again:
> x86_pmu_stop(event);
> }
>
> - intel_pmu_ack_status(ack);
> -
> /*
> * Repeat if there is more work to be done:
> */
>
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
--
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