[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161005080921.GB6467@krava>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:09:21 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic
context
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 03:29:33PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
SNIP
> Which is where we cope with the possibility that we couldn't emulate the
> instruction that hit the breakpoint. Seems that is not an issue on x86,
> or it's handled elsewhere?
>
> We should fix emulate_step() if it failed to emulate something it
> should have, but there will always be the possibility that it fails.
>
> Instead of calling perf_event_disable() we could just add a flag to
> arch_hw_breakpoint that says we hit an error on the event, and block
> reinstalling it in arch_install_hw_breakpoint().
ok, might be easier.. I'll check on that
thanks,
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists