[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140107205145.GE2480@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 21:51:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v0 04/71] itrace: Infrastructure for instruction flow
tracing units
On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 04:42:55PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Yes; go read this:
> >
> > lkml.kernel.org/r/20131219125205.GT3694@...ns.programming.kicks-ass.net
>
> Hmm, but AFAIK we're not using freeze counters on PMI today.
> We just rely on the explicit disabling in the counters through the global
> ctrl.
>
> So it should be the same as with any other PMI which also does not
> automatically freeze. Not true?
Regardless whether its used or not; I'd very much like that answered.
> Or do you mean interaction with the LBRs here?
> (currently LBRs and PT are mutually exclusive)
Yes we very much rely on the FREEZE bits for LBR. PT and LBR being
mutually exclusive wasn't documented (or I missed it) and completely
blows.
--
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