[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131008193613.GA7315@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 21:36:13 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, fweisbec@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: Allow disabling HW_BREAKPOINTS and PERF_EVENTS
* Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:22:23AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> > On 10/8/13 9:51 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:59:38AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > You might want to concentrate your efforts from fighting perf
> > > > functionality towards decreasing per tracepoint overhead instead,
> > > > without hurting kernel functionality and maintainability.
> > >
> > > Making it easier to disable perf entirely would be desirable for one use case.
> > > I can't do a trinity run for more than a few hours for the last few months
> > > without hitting perf/ftrace bugs that no-one seems to be able to get their
> > > heads around.
> >
> > Looks like trinity has an exclude syscall option. Seems like that option
> > can be used to avoid perf_event_open (haven't tried though).
>
> You'd think that, but for whatever reason, ftrace/perf oopses still happen.
Peter is working on it - but it's slow. Could you try to disable
sys_perf_open, ptrace and the NMI watchdog? No perf functionality should
be used in that case. If you disable CONFIG_FTRACE then no ftrace
functionality should be used.
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