Messages in this thread | | | From | Doug Anderson <> | Date | Mon, 12 Jun 2023 06:55:37 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 15/18] watchdog/perf: Add a weak function for an arch to detect if perf can use NMIs |
| |
Mark,
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:33 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 10:18:39AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > On arm64, NMI support needs to be detected at runtime. Add a weak > > function to the perf hardlockup detector so that an architecture can > > implement it to detect whether NMIs are available. > > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > --- > > While I won't object to this patch landing, I consider it part of the > > arm64 perf hardlockup effort. I would be OK with the earlier patches > > in the series landing and then not landing ${SUBJECT} patch nor > > anything else later. > > FWIW, everything prior to this looks fine to me, so I reckon it'd be worth > splitting the series here and getting the buddy lockup detector in first, to > avoid a log-jam on all the subsequent NMI bits.
I think the whole series has already landed in Andrew's tree, including the arm64 "perf" lockup detector bits. I saw all the notifications from Andrew go through over the weekend that they were moved from an "unstable" branch to a "stable" one and I see them at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git/log/?h=mm-nonmm-stable
When I first saw Anderw land the arm64 perf lockup detector bits in his unstable branch several weeks ago, I sent a private message to the arm64 maintainers (yourself included) to make sure you were aware of it and that it hadn't been caught in mail filters. I got the impression that everything was OK. Is that not the case?
-Doug
| |