On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0200 "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Andrew Morton
> <akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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?

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/