[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077536F07AC@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 16:58:04 +0000
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"eranian@...gle.com" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"acme@...hat.com" <acme@...hat.com>,
"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"vincent.weaver@...ne.edu" <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] perf/x86/intel, watchdog: Switch NMI watchdog to
ref cycles on x86
> 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.
>
> So no, I don't think this is right even now.
>
Right, the patch 1/2 doesn't cover all platforms.
I will only apply the patch for the platforms,
which have ref cycles on GP counters.
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists