[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091104174253.GB16091@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:42:53 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc: Aristeu Rozanski <aris@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: introduce NMI_AUTO as nmi_watchdog option
* Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:46:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar said:
>
> > What i'd like to see for the NMI watchdog is much more ambitious
> > than this: the use of perf events to run a periodic NMI callback.
> >
> > The NMI watchdog would cause the creation of a per-cpu perf_event
> > structure (in-kernel). All x86 CPUs that have perf event support
> > (the majority of them) will thus be able to have an NMI watchdog
> > using a nice, generic piece of code and we'd be able to phase out
> > the open-coded NMI watchdog code.
>
> What happens on older/smaller x86 CPUs that don't have any native
> support for perf events?
I think we want to keep their NMI watchdog implementation - but new work
should go towards a perf-events based NMI watchdog.
Note that in practice a working NMI watchdog implementation on an
old/small x86 CPU can be taken and turned into a minimal PMU driver: one
that can provide cycle based NMI events. There's no 'full' PMU support
needed to get a fair amount of perf events functionality - and some of
those CPUs dont even have a PMU.
So there's no hardware barrier of entry.
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