> 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org 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 <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
- Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
- References:
- Re: [PATCH] Separate performance counter reservation from nmi watchdog
- From: Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
- Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
- Re: [perfmon] Re: [PATCH 1/2] Separate the performance counter allocation from the LAPIC NMI watchdog
- From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@hpl.hp.com>
- Re: [PATCH] Separate performance counter reservation from nmi watchdog
- 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):
 |