From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754515AbZBREyV (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:54:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751725AbZBREyM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:54:12 -0500 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:49235 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751319AbZBREyM (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:54:12 -0500 X-Authenticated: #14349625 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1805uVtxBc07hMg44DFTewCzn8cP/Z/PkcjT48ajZ vVB0DsQZ2C9C8k Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc4 regression From: Mike Galbraith To: Tim Blechmann Cc: Robert Richter , oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <499B3271.6020306@klingt.org> References: <1229869416.6911.1.camel@thinkpad> <49932C35.3020300@klingt.org> <20090213190740.GD25042@erda.amd.com> <20090216112313.359ef437@thinkpad> <20090216113349.GF25042@erda.amd.com> <499961AF.8030909@klingt.org> <1234856740.6867.22.camel@marge.simson.net> <499B3271.6020306@klingt.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:54:07 +0100 Message-Id: <1234932847.5257.8.camel@marge.simson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.1.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.67 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 22:56 +0100, Tim Blechmann wrote: > >> hm, i just tried to compile 2.6.28 with this patch applied, and there > >> the NMIs are delivered correctly. > >> > >>> Thanks Tim, on later kernels, is it the behaviour you mentioned that > >>> no NMIs are delivered and you do not receive any NMI? > >> on the current 2.6.29-rc5, no NMIs are delivered. however i have also > >> applied the performance counter branch from tip, maybe that interferes > >> with oprofile? > > > > Hm. > > > > If you're using latest tip, there _should_ be no interference. There > > was a problem a short while back in that both perfcounters and oprofile > > register die handlers, but that was resolved by increasing oprofile's > > handler priority, so that it takes over NMI handling while profiling. > > well, it seems to be a perfcounters vs. oprofile issue. when i applied > the patch i posted earlier onto vanilla 2.6.29-rc5, NMIs were delivered ... Ok, I replied wrt the perfcounters _branch_ you added, and NMI delivery. -Mike