[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118201118.GC6028@lenovo>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:11:18 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 0/6] x86, NMI: give NMI handler a face-lift
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:08:07PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 01:51:44PM -0600, Jason Wessel wrote:
> > > So the problem is when the nmi watchdog is enabled, the perf event is
> > > 'active' and thus tries to read the counter value. Because it is always
> > > zero, perf just assumes the counter overflowed and the NMI is his.
> > >
> > > Not sure how to fix it yet, other than include the logic that detects we
> > > are on a guest and disable perf??
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I highly doubt we want to disable perf. I would rather use the source
> > and fix the nmi emulation in KVM/Qemu after we hear back the results
>
> Well I think Peter does not have a positive opinion about emulating perf
> inside a guest. Nor are the KVM folks having much success in doing so.
>
> Just to clarify, perf counter emulation is _not_ implemented in kvm.
> Therefore disabling perf in the guest makes sense until someone gets
> around to actually writing the emulation code for perf in a guest. :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Don
ok, Don, but you mentioned there are false alarms on real P4 machine, right?
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