[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100113163551.GA10643@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:35:51 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>, aris@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: introduce NMI_AUTO as nmi_watchdog option
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > other architectures have NMI concepts as well, such as Sparc64.
>
> I think both sparc64 and ppc64 fake NMIs by playing games with hw IRQ
> priorities and partial masks. But yes.
>
> One interesting 'feature' for the perf-nmi interaction is creating an idle
> scheduling class for counters, because as long as there is a counter present
> you can use his NMIs to drive the watchdog, but as soon as there are non
> left, you need to install one.
Yeah. I'd suggest to not complicate things with that initially - but to simply
create a standalone event for it and 'waste' a counter on NMI generation.
Later on it can indeed be a good feature to make the NMI watchdog 'seemless'
in the sense of it not causing any wasted hw resources - it can piggyback on
any existing NMI event. (as long as that event is at least ~1 HZ strong or so)
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