Messages in this thread | | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Subject | Re: [discuss] Re: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions (v3) | Date | Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:18:24 -0700 |
| |
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> writes:
> 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.
The simple question. If we turn off the NMI watchdog on 2.6.19-rc5 does oprofile work? I believe that is what Andi said.
The description I read was a resource conflict. The resources oprofile just expects it can used are already in use so we tell it no and the user space oprofile doesn't cope.
Now I don't know the interface allows us to rename the interfaces from 1 2 3 to 0 1 2. If we can then that looks like something we can fix. Otherwise from the description I tend to agree with Andi.
The user space application assumed it own hardware that it did not.
Hmm. I bet if nothing else we could move the NMI watchdog from 0 to 3 and make things work that way...
Eric - 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/
| |