lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [2.6.28-rc6] oprofile: "opcontrol --start" output two warnings
> if so, I think get_stagger() is a bit strange.
> it depend on caller cpu. then if PREEMPT=Y, it return radom result.

Even without PREEMPT it is random because there is no guarantee the
init code is executing on CPU 0

>
> I'm not sure about oprofile design.
> but if you are right, I think p4_fill_in_addresses shoudn't use smp_processor_id().

Correct.

>
> Am I missing any point?

No you're right. Always returning 0 in get_stagger() should be ok
I think, at least it wouldn't make anything worse.

Or perhaps figure out if the per cpu addresses are really needed,
if yes then this would need much more changes. But I hope
that would not be needed.

But someone should better test it, the P4 perfmon handling is certainly
hairy and I don't claim to understand all its intricate details.

-Andi

--
ak@linux.intel.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-25 12:03    [W:0.032 / U:1.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site