Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161562AbWKOVUb (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:20:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161683AbWKOVUb (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:20:31 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:65241 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161562AbWKOVUa (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:20:30 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Andrew Morton Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , discuss@x86-64.org, William Cohen , Komuro , Ernst Herzberg , Andre Noll , oprofile-list@lists.sourceforge.net, Jens Axboe , linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, phil.el@wanadoo.fr, Adrian Bunk , Ingo Molnar , Alan Stern , linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Stephen Hemminger , Prakash Punnoor , Len Brown , Alex Romosan , gregkh@suse.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrey Borzenkov Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: 2.6.19-rc5: known regressions (v3) References: <200611151945.31535.ak@suse.de> <200611152023.53960.ak@suse.de> <20061115122118.14fa2177.akpm@osdl.org> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:18:24 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20061115122118.14fa2177.akpm@osdl.org> (Andrew Morton's message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:21:18 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1454 Lines: 38 Andrew Morton 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/