[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19186.44983.543376.657628@pilspetsen.it.uu.se>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists