[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3 v2] nmi perf fixes
    I think the broader issue here is that I think we should not have
    so many subsystems hanging off of that die_register(). The NMI
    should be for perf_events only. Many in there have nothing to do
    with performance monitoring. They are mostly debug features.

    On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Stephane Eranian <> wrote:
    > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 15:07 -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
    >>> Fixes to allow unknown nmis to pass through the perf nmi handler instead
    >>> of being swallowed.  Contains patches that are already in Ingo's tree.  Added
    >>> here for completeness.  Based on ingo/tip
    >>> Tested on intel/amd
    >>> v2: patch cleanups and consolidation, no code changes
    >>> Don Zickus (1):
    >>>   perf, x86: Fix accidentally ack'ing a second event on intel perf
    >>>     counter
    >>> Peter Zijlstra (1):
    >>>   perf, x86: Fix handle_irq return values
    >>> Robert Richter (1):
    >>>   perf, x86: Try to handle unknown nmis with an enabled PMU
    >>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c       |   59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
    >>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c |   15 +++++---
    >>>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_p4.c    |    2 +-
    >>>  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
    >> Both Ingo and I are getting Dazed and confused on our AMD machines, it
    >> started before yesterday (that is, after backing out all my recent
    >> changes it still gets dazed), so I suspect this set.
    >> I'll look at getting a trace of the thing, but if any of you has a
    >> bright idea...
    > I still don't buy the back-to-back NMI thing. I suspect there is
    > something else going on. I have continued to track it down.
    > I got closer yesterday, until I ran into other issues. It may
    > have to do with throttling. I am still trying to understanding
    > why the OVF_STATUS does not match the check based on
    > the counter values.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-10 14:15    [W:0.024 / U:17.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site