[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101208143922.GA31703@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:39:22 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Haren Myneni <hbabu@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: perf hw in kexeced kernel broken in tip
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:01:03AM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:30:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 11:15 -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> >
> > > Vivek suggested to me this morning that I should just blantantly disable the
> > > perf counter during init when running my test.
> >
> > Nah, we should actively scan for that during the bring-up and kill
> > hw-perf when we find an enable bit set, some BIOSes actively use the
> > PMU, this is something that should be discouraged.
>
> Ok, the reboot notifier addresses the kexec problem but doesn't fix it
> though (I have to test to confirm that, comments below). The bios check
> should catch those situations (ironically I stumbled upon a machine with
> this problem, so I will test your patch with it, though it only uses perf
> counter 0). The kdump problem will still exist, not sure if we care and
> perhaps we should document in the changelog that we know kdump is still
> broken (unless we do care).
Can't think why would somebody like to use performance counters in kdump
kernel. So that probably should not be a concern.
Vivek
--
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