[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87oaq4nqco.fsf@ashishki-desk.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:19:35 +0200
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, kan.liang@...el.com,
adrian.hunter@...el.com, markus.t.metzger@...el.com,
mathieu.poirier@...aro.org, acme@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 12/14] x86: perf: intel_pt: Intel PT PMU driver
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 03:43:45PM +0200, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> +static void pt_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
>> +{
>> + struct pt *pt = this_cpu_ptr(&pt_ctx);
>> +
>> + ACCESS_ONCE(pt->handle_nmi) = 0;
>
> Why is this needed? Will the hardware still generate interrupts if you
> stop the PT thing?
It's meant to serialize nmi handler against the pmu:: callbacks, but now
you mentioned it, it looks very much redundant.
Cheers,
--
Alex
--
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