[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110705131005.GA5843@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 15:10:05 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.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 -tip, final] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a
sake of nmi-watchdog on P4
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> perf, x86: P4 PMU - Add hw_watchdog_set_attr helper to simulate cpu-cycles counting in nmi-watchdog
>
> Because of constraints existed in Netburst PMU counting
> cpu cycles is allowed for one consumer only.
>
> If the kernel is booted up with nmi-watchdog enabled
> the watchdog become a consumer of such event and there
> is no more room left for "perf top" and friends (ie any
> attempts to count cpu cycles simultaneously with nmi-watchdog
> doomed to fail).
Hm, what is the symptom - 'perf top' reports nothing?
If multiple users request cycles then perf will time-share them -
this is what happens if you run many 'perf top' or 'perf stat'
sessions in parallel for example. For example i just tried to run six
separate 'perf top' in parallel - and all six worked fine.
So the question is, why does the NMI watchdog prevent 'perf top' from
working on a P4?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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