Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog

> Once this is fixed (which is what Bjorn did), then I will agree with you.
> For this, the allocator needs to be able to probe the CPU and initialize
> its own data structures.

Ok that sounds reasonable. Please someone send a patch that does only 
that.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
    • From: Björn Steinbrink <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Re: [PATCH] Separate performance counter reservation from nmi watchdog
    • From: Björn Steinbrink <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
    • From: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
• Next by Date: Re: [Intel IOMMU 06/10] Avoid memory allocation failures in dma map api calls
• Previous by thread: Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
• Next by thread: Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]