From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753676Ab0CWWlr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:41:47 -0400
Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.35]:6346 "EHLO
	smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752782Ab0CWWlq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:41:46 -0400
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:
	cc:content-type:x-system-of-record;
	b=HPML6ahuiLOsK1h+i9HMq/6NxlYIpHNnefnQ/xnJEqRhAi6gOHSedTg4Q9srmJkhd
	mewKZQHUgRQkha9IfyMYQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1269357506.5109.84.camel@twins>
References: <4ba0a646.25e2660a.1b25.531c@mx.google.com>
	 <1268869631.9440.282.camel@laptop>
	 <bd4cb8901003171733k95fcf50mf6de78bf503d9a7b@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1269353485.5109.48.camel@twins>
	 <bd4cb8901003230755k41414173n302d7d626a6126b1@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1269356868.5109.66.camel@twins>
	 <bd4cb8901003230812s777fcd77x6ffff63123039070@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1269357506.5109.84.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:41:41 +0100
Message-ID: <bd4cb8901003231541g1c465bf3i38c3ca2a654baff6@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_events: fix bug in AMD per-cpu initialization
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo <mingo@elte.hu>, paulus@samba.org,
       davem@davemloft.net, fweisbec@gmail.com, robert.richter@amd.com,
       perfmon2-devel@lists.sf.net, eranian@gmail.com,
       "hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-System-Of-Record: true
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 16:12 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 15:55 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> What's the point of CPU_ONLINE vs. CPU_STARTING if you're saying the
>> >> former is never right? Why not move CPU_ONLINE to the right place and
>> >> drop CPU_STARTING?
>> >
>> > Its right for a lot of things, just not for perf, we need to be ready
>> > and done by the time the cpu starts scheduling.
>> >
>> You mean they need to wait until after the cpu starts scheduling?
>> As opposed to being called just before it starts scheduling.
>
> As in it doesn't really matter for them, and the CPU_ONLINE call is
> convenient in that it allows the callback to schedule too.
>
Fine, I will try your proposed patch tomorrow. A priori, it looks fine.