On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 01:11:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > index b9826a9..651a86d 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c > > @@ -1586,6 +1586,8 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs) > > if (!x86_pmu.late_ack) > > apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI); > > __intel_pmu_disable_all(); > > + if (cpuc->core_misc_active_mask) > > + intel_core_misc_pmu_disable(); > > Huh? Free running counters have nothing to do with the PMU interrupt; > there's nothing they can do to trigger it. This feels very hacky. > > If this is necessary, surely it should live in __intel_pmu_disable_all? > > [...]
Yeah this is crazy. It should not live in the regular PMU at all, not be Intel specific. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
