Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:21:18 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [discuss] Re: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions (v3) |
| |
On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:23:53 +0100 Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> > > The fact is, it used to work, and the kernel changed interfaces, so now it > > doesn't. > > No, it didn't work. oprofile may have done something, but it > just silently killed the NMI watchdog in the process. > That was never acceptable.
But people could get profiles out. I know, I've seen them!
> Now we do proper accounting of NMI sources and also proper allocation > of performance counters. > > > > Yes, "oprofile" should be fixed to not depend on that, but the kernel > > shouldn't change the interfaces, and we should add back the zero entry. > > That would break the nmi watchdog again. > > Anyways, there is a sysctl to disable the nmi watchdog if someone > is desperate. > > But I think it is clearly oprofile who did wrong here and needs > to be fixed. >
Is it correct to say that oprofile-on-2.6.18 works, and that oprofile-on-2.6.19-rc5 does not?
Or is there some sort of workaround for this, or does 2.6.19-rc5 only fail in some particular scenarios?
If it's really true that oprofile is simply busted then that's a serious problem and we should find some way of unbusting it. If that means just adding a dummy "0" entry which always returns zero or something like that, then fine.
But we can't just go and bust it. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |