On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:23:53 +0100 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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! > 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 in some particular scenarios? 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. But we can't just go and bust it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
