[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090409052002.GE5352@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 07:20:02 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_counter: powerpc: add nmi_enter/nmi_exit calls
* Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org> wrote:
> Impact: powerpc bug fix
>
> Now that the core is using in_nmi() (added in e30e08f6,
> "perf_counter: fix NMI race in task clock"), we need the powerpc
> perf_counter_interrupt to call nmi_enter() and nmi_exit() in those
> cases where the interrupt happens when interrupts are
> soft-disabled. If interrupts were soft-enabled, we can treat it
> as a regular interrupt and do irq_enter/irq_exit around the whole
> routine. This lets us get rid of the test_perf_counter_pending()
> call at the end of perf_counter_interrupt, thus simplifying things
> a little.
applied, thanks Paul!
I'm wondering, what was the real impact? Was it a crash or some
other misbehavior? This impact line:
Impact: powerpc bug fix
is a bit too generic to be useful in practice. Something like:
Impact: fix stuck NMIs on powerpc
Impact: fix NMI crash on powerpc
would have been more descriptive about the real, hands-on impact of
this patch.
Ingo
--
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