[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1402201438480.24360@vincent-weaver-1.um.maine.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:46:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: x86_pmu_start WARN_ON.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, Vince Weaver wrote:
>
> > Might be relevant: check the last_cpu values. Right before the above
> > it looks like the thread gets moved from CPU 1 to CPU 0
> > (possibly as a result of the long chain started with the
> > close() of the tracepoint event),
> > so the problem NMI watchdog event being enabled is a different one than
> > the one that was disabled just before.
>
> so is this a false warning? If you get scheduled to a new CPU
> and there's an already running CPU-wide event, is that OK?
>
> Or should x86_pmu_disable() be setting PERF_HES_STOPPED on all events?
> It looks like other architectures are (such as armpmu_stop() ).
an actually I take that back, other architectures don't.
It's just confusing how
perf_pmu_disable()
calls
pmu->pmu_disable()
which on arm is:
armpmu_disable()
which calls:
armpmu->stop()
which is *not* the same as:
armpmu_stop()
but is actually armpmu->pmu->stop()
Urgh.
Vince
--
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