[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1290208179.2114.13.camel@laptop>
Date:	Sat, 20 Nov 2010 00:09:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
	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 Fri, 2010-11-19 at 17:59 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,19 @@ static void release_pmc_hardware(void) {}
>  
>  #endif
>  
> +static bool check_hw_exists(void)
> +{
> +       u64 val, val_new;
> +
> +       val = 0xabcdUL;
> +       (void) checking_wrmsrl(x86_pmu.perfctr, val);
> +       rdmsrl(x86_pmu.perfctr, val_new);
Yeah, this looks about right, although for extreme prudence I'd also use
a checking_rdmsrl().
> +       if (val != val_new)
> +               return false;
> +
> +       return true;
> +}
> +
>  static void reserve_ds_buffers(void);
>  static void release_ds_buffers(void);
>  
> @@ -1371,6 +1385,12 @@ void __init init_hw_perf_events(void)
>  
>         pmu_check_apic();
>  
> +       /* sanity check that the hardware exists or is emulated */
> +       if (!check_hw_exists()) {
> +               pr_cont("no PMU driver, software events only.\n");
> +               return;
> +       } 
Maybe report something like this: 
  "Broken PMU hardware detected, software events only."
Because this is really not something that's supposed to happen.
--
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
 
