Andrew Morton <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
The simple question. If we turn off the NMI watchdog on 2.6.19-rc5
does oprofile work? I believe that is what Andi said.
The description I read was a resource conflict. The resources oprofile
just expects it can used are already in use so we tell it no and
the user space oprofile doesn't cope.
Now I don't know the interface allows us to rename the interfaces
from 1 2 3 to 0 1 2. If we can then that looks like something we can
fix. Otherwise from the description I tend to agree with Andi.
The user space application assumed it own hardware that it did not.
Hmm. I bet if nothing else we could move the NMI watchdog from 0 to 3
and make things work that way...
Eric
-
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]
