[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070831162146.GD7161@frankl.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:21:46 -0700
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc: B.Steinbrink@....de, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com>
Subject: Re: nmi_watchdog=2 regression in 2.6.21
Daniel,
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:43:20AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-30 at 14:05 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Daniel,
>
> > Yes, I realized I missed a small detail in the switch statement.
> > Could you try the new version?
>
> This patch still has the stuck NMI .. Essentially the same thing that
> happened without the patch..
>
Ok, looks like deaulting to P6 does not quite work.
Here is a new version. This time I used a different approach.
I am must admit I am a bit puzzled by the duplication of information
between the wd_ops and the nmi_watchdog_ctlblk structure. My understanding
is that thelater is used as a cache for the info that needs to be per-cpu.
The wd_ops provides the MSR to use for the counter, yet all the setup_*()
routines hardcode the MSR. Not sure why?
In this patch, the setup_*() routine now extract the MSR from the wd_ops
to copy them into the nmi_watchdog_ctlblk. This is not done for P4 because
of the special and ugly case of HT.
With this approach, we can now create a custom wd_ops for CoreDuo that is
a clone of the intel_arch_wd_ops, except for the MSR.
Could you try this one instead?
Thanks.
--
-Stephane
View attachment "coreduo3.diff" of type "text/plain" (2071 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists