On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200 "Pekka Enberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Seems a poor idea to me. Sure, oprofile is "hard to set up", but not if > > your distributor already did it for you. > > > > Sidebar: the code uses the utterly crappy register_timer_hook() which > > > > a) is woefully misnamed and > > > > b) is racy and > > > > c) will disrupt oprofile if it is being used. And vice versa. > > I wonder if sysprof should hook to the same interrupt as oprofile then? oprofile uses register_timer_hook() for its oh-crap-nothing-else-works fallback iirc. It's a useful fallback: I used it a few centuries ago on some el-cheapo VIA CPU-based thing we had at Digeo. It's unclear to me whether all this stuff works with NO_HZ=y, btw. Didn't we just lose the regular timer interrupts which these clients depend upon? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
