[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50D79119.9010002@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:17:45 -0700
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf changes for v3.8
On 12/23/12 2:23 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> Your patch alone was not enough. Start here:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/12/3
>>
> I cannot reproduce this failure. I reverted 20b279ddb38c and ran "perf
> record -e cycles:ppG" while guest was running. Admittedly I ran the test
> for a short time, but without disabling PEBS during the guest entry this
> was enough to crash a guest.
In the beginning (without any patches) VMs crashed fairly quickly. With
your patch it took longer, but I was able to consistently crash VMs. The
thread notes server info (processor, OS) and VM versions as well as load
used for the tests -- a cpu bound process (openssl), disk bound (dd) and
network (netperf).
> What about forcing exclude_guest on an event that
> has precise flag set without reporting error to userspace?
That's up to the perf maintainers -- Ingo, Peter, Arnaldo. Personally, I
don't like it since kernel side is changing the user request.
David
--
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