[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110628161110.GJ1159@sun>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:11:10 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of
nmi-watchdog on P4
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 05:53:31PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Cyrill,
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HARDLOCKUP_DETECTOR
> +void __weak hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(struct perf_event_attr *wd_attr) { }
>
> The weak function has to remain inside the #ifdef. Remember it's just an
> override in case you cannot using the generic cycle event. It is only needed
> when you have the HARDLOCK detector, i.e., are using the PMU to detect
> deadlocks.
>
> I suspect P4 may be the only one so far which exhibited a problem there.
>
heh ;) Guys, maybe we're talking about different things? Don, when you said
"Though I do wonder about this call in the watchdog" you meant the
wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh);
--> hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(wd_attr);
itself? Ie you suspect some different point where to call it?
When I said not a "best place" I meant about __weak function bare implementation
placed that near to call (which is looked somehow suspicious for me from overall
code structure), but I didn't mean the call sequence itself ;)
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