From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756733AbZBPLzh (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:55:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750705AbZBPLz3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:55:29 -0500 Received: from wa4ehsobe002.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.181.12]:34024 "EHLO WA4EHSOBE002.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750738AbZBPLz2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:55:28 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 905 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:55:28 EST X-BigFish: VPS-52(z21eWz1432R62a3L98dR936eQ1805Mzzzzz32i6bh61h) X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0 X-FB-SS: 5, X-WSS-ID: 0KF5PQW-02-K0B-01 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:40:10 +0100 From: Robert Richter To: Andi Kleen CC: oprofile-list@lists.sf.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tim Blechmann Subject: Re: 2.6.29-rc4 regression (was: Re: 2.6.28-rc9: oprofile regression) Message-ID: <20090216114010.GG25042@erda.amd.com> References: <1229869416.6911.1.camel@thinkpad> <49932C35.3020300@klingt.org> <20090213190740.GD25042@erda.amd.com> <20090216112313.359ef437@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090216112313.359ef437@thinkpad> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Feb 2009 11:40:10.0757 (UTC) FILETIME=[53048B50:01C9902B] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16.02.09 11:23:13, Tim Blechmann wrote: > > still, I can not reproduce this with my tests with v2.6.29-rc4. The > > regression on the systems I have runs fine on rc4. On the system you > > have, is commit b99170288421c79f0c2efa8b33e26e65f4bb7fb8 the first bad > > one? If so, I will split the patch into smaller pieces to find the > > change that introduces the bug. > > i got revision df13b31c286b3e91c556167954eda088d90a4295 working, by not > resetting the counter width: > > diff --git a/arch/x86/oprofile/op_model_ppro.c b/arch/x86/oprofile/op_model_ppro.c > index 12e207a..f0e019d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/oprofile/op_model_ppro.c > +++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/op_model_ppro.c > @@ -76,12 +76,14 @@ static void ppro_setup_ctrs(struct op_msrs const * const msrs) > return; > } > > +#if 0 > if (cpu_has_arch_perfmon) { > union cpuid10_eax eax; > eax.full = cpuid_eax(0xa); > if (counter_width < eax.split.bit_width) > counter_width = eax.split.bit_width; > } > +#endif Andi, do you suggest a fix for this (disable arch_perfmon for already implemented cpus, for all, or for this certain cpu)? -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center email: robert.richter@amd.com