[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070721061945.GC5293@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:19:45 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>, 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
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:17:49AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Zachary Amsden (zach@...are.com) wrote:
> > 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'm not so sure about this. You are right in that it has nothing to do
> with parse_args, but I just went in detail through the source, and the
> order seems to be:
>
> 1 - NMI is activated
> 2 - MCE is activated
> 3 - alternatives are applied
Yes I was wrong on this. I now added code to disable them again -- see
the later patch I posted
-Andi
-
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