Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of nmi-watchdog on P4

From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: Add hw_watchdog_set_attr() in a sake of nmi-watchdog on P4
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:27:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110628162714.GV7027@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110628161110.GJ1159@sun>

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:11:10PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> 
>  	wd_attr->sample_period = hw_nmi_get_sample_period(watchdog_thresh);
> -->	hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr(wd_attr);
> 
> itself? Ie you suspect some different point where to call it?
> 
> When I said not a "best place" I meant about __weak function bare implementation
> placed that near to call (which is looked somehow suspicious for me from overall
> code structure), but I didn't mean the call sequence itself ;)

Sorry I was probably vague.  What I meant to say is that the call
'hw_nmi_watchdog_set_attr' is really x86 specific and thought we could
bury it down there somehow.  Yeah the __weak symbol cleverly gets around
it.

I was thinking it would be nice to stick it in hw_nmi_get_sample_period as
that is arch specific.  But it really wouldn't make sense there.

It's probably fine for now and maybe someday we can come up with a better
idea where to put it.

I don't want to waste to much time thinking about it as I have other
issues I am dealing with.  I just wanted to get this resolved so I can
push this patch into RHEL-6.

Cheers,
Don