Messages in this thread | | | From | Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH v6 2/4] perf: add arm64 smmuv3 pmu driver | Date | Mon, 25 Mar 2019 09:14:35 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org] > On Behalf Of Robin Murphy > Sent: 21 March 2019 15:04 > To: Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>; > lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com > Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com; vkilari@codeaurora.org; > neil.m.leeder@gmail.com; jean-philippe.brucker@arm.com; > pabba@codeaurora.org; John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>; > will.deacon@arm.com; rruigrok@codeaurora.org; Linuxarm > <linuxarm@huawei.com>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; > linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org; Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo) > <guohanjun@huawei.com>; andrew.murray@arm.com; > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/4] perf: add arm64 smmuv3 pmu driver
[...]
> Ah, apologies for leading you wrong on this, but it has turned out to be > bogus - perf_pmu_register() does things for which preemption should not > be disabled, and it flares up particularly on PREEMPT_RT. For now, I > think the best thing to do is to bring the put_cpu() call up here (or > just use raw_smp_processor_id() instead) and accept that those > vanishingly-unlikely-in-practice race conditions exist until someone can > make the registration dance more robust in the perf core itself. > > Beyond that, though, I'm trusting that everything I didn't comment on > last time and doesn't appear at a glance to have changed is still good, > so with the comments above addressed, > > Reviewed-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> > > FYI, both Will and Mark are out for a while, so whilst I expect v7 > should be good to merge, don't expect any maintainer final say for at > least a couple of weeks yet. >
Thanks Robin. I will address the comments and sent out v7 soon.
Cheers, Shameer
| |