On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:57:55 -0700, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > Keeping parts of the PMU HW permanently reserved whether or not
> > the watchdog is enabled would be a BUG.
> >
> True. But the upside is that you guarantee the activation of the NMI
> watchdog will always succeed which may be a
Mikael,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:04:25 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I think the tricky part is that we do want to reserve perfctr1 even
> > > though the NMI watchdog is not active. This comes from the fact that
> > > the
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:04:25 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I think the tricky part is that we do want to reserve perfctr1 even
> > though the NMI watchdog is not active. This comes from the fact that
> > the NMI watchdog knows about only one counter and if it can't get that
> > one, it
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:04:25 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the tricky part is that we do want to reserve perfctr1 even
though the NMI watchdog is not active. This comes from the fact that
the NMI watchdog knows about only one counter and if it can't get that
one, it probably
Mikael,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:04:25 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the tricky part is that we do want to reserve perfctr1 even
though the NMI watchdog is not active. This comes from the fact that
the NMI
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 02:57:55 -0700, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
Keeping parts of the PMU HW permanently reserved whether or not
the watchdog is enabled would be a BUG.
True. But the upside is that you guarantee the activation of the NMI
watchdog will always succeed which may be a valuable
On 2007.06.25 21:36:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
> >
> > Bj__rn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> > > probed, so we have to do
On 2007.06.25 13:01:58 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 09:36:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
> > >
> > > Bj__rn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The performance
> I looked at the code I have in my tree coming from Bjon's patches and
> I am a bit confused by the flow for probing as well.
Yes, it's a little risky. Perhaps it's better to readd the separate CPU switch
from .21 there again for 2.6.22. Ugly, but should be safe
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 09:36:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
> >
> > Bj__rn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> > > probed, so
On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
>
> Bj__rn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> > probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
>
> So... what's
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
> probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
>
So... what's the status of this lot?
I've just merged this patch and the
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
So... what's the status of this lot?
I've just merged this patch and the
On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
So... what's the status
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 09:36:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do
I looked at the code I have in my tree coming from Bjon's patches and
I am a bit confused by the flow for probing as well.
Yes, it's a little risky. Perhaps it's better to readd the separate CPU switch
from .21 there again for 2.6.22. Ugly, but should be safe
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this
On 2007.06.25 13:01:58 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 09:36:17PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance counter allocator
On 2007.06.25 21:36:17 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Monday 25 June 2007 21:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:34:48 +0200
Bj__rn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do that even if the
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
Signed-off-by: Björn Steinbrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/i386/kernel/cpu/perfctr-watchdog.c | 11 +--
arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c |3
The performance counter allocator relies on the nmi watchdog being
probed, so we have to do that even if the watchdog is not enabled.
Signed-off-by: Björn Steinbrink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/i386/kernel/cpu/perfctr-watchdog.c | 11 +--
arch/i386/kernel/nmi.c |3
20 matches
Mail list logo
