Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts afterdisabling counters

[Stephane Eranian]

Andi,

On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I haven't seen Andi's suggestion. But I am guessing he is suggesting
>> adding a new chain that would be called first and where there would
>> ONLY be the perf_event subsystem. To handle the spurious PMU
>
> I was thinking of a separate NMI chain
>

You mean separate callbacks which rely on getting an NMI interrupt
from those which don't? If so, I definitively agree with you on that.


> (and longer term really splitting the die chains into separate chains,
> that would solve other problems e.g. with page fault performance
> too)
>
> Possibly that NMI chain could be split up too, but not sure
> this is really needed.
>
You need to split to enforce more explicit priority scheme than what
you  have today with an ordered list per chain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/