[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170522120424.pt3zoyexzkjx5kdu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 14:04:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...el.com
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, acme@...hat.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, vincent.weaver@...ne.edu, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/x86/intel, watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to ref
cycles on x86
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 02:03:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:06:22AM -0700, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> > This patch was once merged, but reverted later.
> > Because ref-cycles can not be used anymore when watchdog is enabled.
> > The commit is 44530d588e142a96cf0cd345a7cb8911c4f88720
> >
> > The patch 1/2 has extended the ref-cycles to GP counter. The concern
> > should be gone.
>
> So its not a problem if every Atom prior to Goldmont, and all Core/Core2
> products regress?
>
> P6 and P4 you've entirely broken, as they don't have REF_CPU_CYCLES at all.
+ KNC
>
> So no, I don't think this is right even now.
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists