linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: introduce NMI_AUTO as nmi

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:57:59 +0100
From:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
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

Ingo Molnar writes:
 > > but that would work only for LAPIC. You're suggesting killing IOAPIC 
 > > mode too?
 > 
 > Would it be a big loss, with all modern systems expected to have a 
 > working lapic based NMI source?

The IOAPIC NMI uses a HW resource that is free and reliable, the LAPIC NMI
uses a HW resource that is neither free nor reliable (for that application),
and for which better applications exist. So I prefer the IOAPIC NMI.

(I admit part of that preference is because using the IOAPIC NMI helped
stabilize a Dell PE2650 here years ago. Without the IOAPIC NMI the machine
would lock up hard within days or a few weeks at the most.)
--
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/