[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WyLKygSsArCaSzid47Rz5=ozR6Yh9L6Q3JStpzF9Tn9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2023 06:55:37 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
kgdb-bugreport@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>, mpe@...erman.id.au,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...omium.org>,
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
npiggin@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
ravi.v.shankar@...el.com, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Pingfan Liu <kernelfans@...il.com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Lecopzer Chen <lecopzer.chen@...iatek.com>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, ito-yuichi@...itsu.com,
ricardo.neri@...el.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 15/18] watchdog/perf: Add a weak function for an arch
to detect if perf can use NMIs
Mark,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:33 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:18:39AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > On arm64, NMI support needs to be detected at runtime. Add a weak
> > function to the perf hardlockup detector so that an architecture can
> > implement it to detect whether NMIs are available.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> > ---
> > While I won't object to this patch landing, I consider it part of the
> > arm64 perf hardlockup effort. I would be OK with the earlier patches
> > in the series landing and then not landing ${SUBJECT} patch nor
> > anything else later.
>
> FWIW, everything prior to this looks fine to me, so I reckon it'd be worth
> splitting the series here and getting the buddy lockup detector in first, to
> avoid a log-jam on all the subsequent NMI bits.
I think the whole series has already landed in Andrew's tree,
including the arm64 "perf" lockup detector bits. I saw all the
notifications from Andrew go through over the weekend that they were
moved from an "unstable" branch to a "stable" one and I see them at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/log/?h=mm-nonmm-stable
When I first saw Anderw land the arm64 perf lockup detector bits in
his unstable branch several weeks ago, I sent a private message to the
arm64 maintainers (yourself included) to make sure you were aware of
it and that it hadn't been caught in mail filters. I got the
impression that everything was OK. Is that not the case?
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists