Em Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:31:49PM +0100, Borislav Petkov escreveu: > Btw, I received your mail just now - probably greylisting... > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 10:44:33AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Isn't this confusing, i.e. people runnin 'tool workload' can be lead to > > think that the events reported took place just when the workload was > > running, i.e. on the same cpu and while it was being scheduled? > > That's a good point. > > > I understand the desire to avoid asking people to use -a, i.e. if it > > only makes sense as system wide, hey, do it as system wide, but can't > > this be confusing? > > Well, I did > > tool workload > > and it said <not supported>. Now, if I'm the only one to stare puzzled
Well, this one should be read (and written in the tool output as): <not supported in workload only mode, try system wide, using -a> > at this and wonder why it says "not supported", then sure, I know now > that I should use -a. > > But if other users are as confused as me, you probably want to tell them > to try -a too, no? > > IOW, we probably could extend my other patch which says that people > should try to disable the HW NMI watchdog to say "try using -a for > uncore-only events" when it detects <not supported>. Right, the ENOTSUPP in this case needs to be properly expanded into something meaningful, as suggested above. > > Thoughts? > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
