[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080206210407.GB25183@hmsendeavour.rdu.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:04:07 -0500
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH], issue EOI to APIC prior to calling crash_kexec in die_nmi path
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:30PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Neil Horman wrote:
> >Can an APIC accept an NMI while already handling an NMI? I didn't think
> >they
> >would interrupt one another, but rather, pend until such time as the
> >previous
> >NMI was cleared
>
> The CPU certainly won't (there is a hidden flag that's cleared on IRET
> which disables NMI; it's possible to re-enable NMI by executing a dummy
> IRET inside the NMI handler.)
>
> -hpa
So that would be another solution I would expect. Would you rather I
investigate that, or is the proposed solution more reasonable?
Neil
--
/***************************************************
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*nhorman@...hat.com
*gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
*http://pgp.mit.edu
***************************************************/
--
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