On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:23:53 +0100
Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The fact is, it used to work, and the kernel changed interfaces, so now it
> > doesn't.
>
> No, it didn't work. oprofile may have done something, but it
> just silently killed the NMI watchdog in the process.
> That was never acceptable.
But people could get profiles out. I know, I've seen them!
> Now we do proper accounting of NMI sources and also proper allocation
> of performance counters.
>
>
> > Yes, "oprofile" should be fixed to not depend on that, but the kernel
> > shouldn't change the interfaces, and we should add back the zero entry.
>
> That would break the nmi watchdog again.
>
> Anyways, there is a sysctl to disable the nmi watchdog if someone
> is desperate.
>
> But I think it is clearly oprofile who did wrong here and needs
> to be fixed.
>
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.
-
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/
[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]
