[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46A00CC2.6010407@vmware.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:15:46 -0700
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, jbeulich@...ell.com,
"S. P. Prasanna" <prasanna@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...-64.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Subject: Re: new text patching for review
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> Yes, kprobes is case 1: atomic update. And we don't even have to bother
> about Intel's erratum. This one is ok. That's mainly the
> alternatives/paravirt code I worry about.
>
Paravirt and alternatives should all be ok because they are done before
SMP bringup and with NMIs disabled. NMI watchdog is not setup until
smp_prepare_cpus/check_nmi_watchdog, which happens way later, not during
parse_args/setup_nmi_watchdog, which just decides which type of watchdog
to setup.
I originally considered the NMI problem for paravirt-ops patching done
during module load, and found that I would need to modify
stop_machine_run to have an architecture specific callout to mask and
unmask NMIs. I didn't imagine that would be very popular, and VMI was
the only paravirt-ops that were considering module load time patching,
so I flushed it.
You get some other nasty issues as well with run-time switching, like
missing early init calls (in particular, we would have to go to some
heroics to retake the land surrounding the APIC local timer interrupt).
Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists