From: Andi K. <ak...@su...> - 2006-11-16 03:21:39
|
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:21:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > Andi Kleen <ak...@su...> 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! Just the nmi watchdog was gone then. > > > 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 echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/nmi_watchdog before the oprofile module is loaded. With builtin oprofile probably nmi_watchdog=0 > in some particular scenarios? On x86-64 and on newer i386 machines (based on DMI year) > > 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. That could be probably done. > But we can't just go and bust it. It just did something unbelievable broken before. I would say it busted itself. -Andi |