Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764133AbZAQQMT (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:12:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761813AbZAQQMC (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:12:02 -0500 Received: from tx2ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.13]:22281 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759576AbZAQQMA (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:12:00 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 902 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:12:00 EST X-BigFish: VPS-60(z21eWz1432R62a3L98dR936eQ1805M179dRzzzzz32i6bh43j) X-WSS-ID: 0KDMHM8-04-01Q-01 Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:56:35 +0100 From: Robert Richter To: Tim Blechmann CC: Thomas Gleixner , Andi Kleen , oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com Subject: Re: 2.6.28-rc9: oprofile regression Message-ID: <20090117155635.GC21604@erda.amd.com> References: <1231957184.13033.70.camel@thinkpad> <1232010853.6541.4.camel@thinkpad> <1232067181.6134.74.camel@thinkpad> <1232199169.7016.12.camel@thinkpad> <20090117141453.GA21604@erda.amd.com> <1232204963.17299.8.camel@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1232204963.17299.8.camel@thinkpad> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2009 15:56:35.0787 (UTC) FILETIME=[2CD151B0:01C978BC] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1511 Lines: 46 On 17.01.09 16:09:23, Tim Blechmann wrote: > > > however, trying to apply this patch to 2.6.28, the behavior is the same > > > as before (one NMI) ... so possibly, it is a combination of two bugs, > > > with similar symptoms ... > > > > Tim, could you revert 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea too? > > > > If this not helps, last chance is > > 59512900baab03c5629f2ff5efad1d5d4e682ece, but this seems to be save. > > i tried to revert both commits, however the behavior doesn't seem to > change. will try to apply the working patch to the child commits, maybe > i can find something interesting ... Hmm, strange. Actually 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea fixed a similiar bug, see here: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11908 Your patch with 2.6.28, does: grep NMI /proc/interrupts returns exactly 1 NMI per core or some more? > > best, tim > > btw, i am not very familiar with kernel programming, but is it safe to > have `static u64 *reset_value' uninitialized, or should it be > initialized to NULL? External and static variables should be gaaranteed to be initialized to zero. Only local variables are uninitialized. -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center email: robert.richter@amd.com -- 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/