[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080922183504.GN16840@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:35:05 -0400
From: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dzickus@...hat.com, prarit@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NMI watchdog: setup before enabling NMI watchdog
> Hi Aristeu,
>
> thanks for the patch! I may be _absolutely_ wrong but could you
> explain me how we reach this site in traps
>
> ---
> if (!(reason & 0xc0)) {
> if (notify_die(DIE_NMI_IPI, "nmi_ipi", regs, reason,
> 2, SIGINT) == NOTIFY_STOP)
> return;
> /*
> * Ok, so this is none of the documented NMI sources,
> * so it must be the NMI watchdog.
> ^^^^
> */
> if (nmi_watchdog_tick(regs, reason))
> return;
> if (!do_nmi_callback(regs, cpu))
> unknown_nmi_error(reason, regs);
>
> return;
> }
> ---
>
> not having masked APIC registers as NMI entry yet (which is done during
> perfctl initialization)?
actually the comment is a bit misleading. we can get other "undocumented"
NMIs from different sources. Notice that if the nmi_watchdog_tick() doesn't
identifies it as a performance counter generated NMI (if LAPIC based, IOAPIC
always assume that the NMI is for the NMI watchdog), a default NMI callback
will be tried and if it fails, unknown_nmi_error() will be called. The first
case comes to my head is those NMI buttons present on development machines.
--
Aristeu
--
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