Re: 2.6.28-rc9: oprofile regression

From: Robert Richter
Date: Sat Jan 17 2009 - 11:12:19 EST

On 17.01.09 16:09:23, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> > > however, trying to apply this patch to 2.6.28, the behavior is the same
> > > as before (one NMI) ... so possibly, it is a combination of two bugs,
> > > with similar symptoms ...
> >
> > Tim, could you revert 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea too?
> >
> > If this not helps, last chance is
> > 59512900baab03c5629f2ff5efad1d5d4e682ece, but this seems to be save.
> i tried to revert both commits, however the behavior doesn't seem to
> change. will try to apply the working patch to the child commits, maybe
> i can find something interesting ...

Hmm, strange. Actually 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea fixed
a similiar bug, see here:

Your patch with 2.6.28, does:

grep NMI /proc/interrupts

returns exactly 1 NMI per core or some more?

> best, tim
> btw, i am not very familiar with kernel programming, but is it safe to
> have `static u64 *reset_value' uninitialized, or should it be
> initialized to NULL?

External and static variables should be gaaranteed to be initialized
to zero. Only local variables are uninitialized.


Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
email: robert.richter@xxxxxxx

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at