[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1271429591.4807.2385.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:53:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
aris@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] [watchdog] combine nmi_watchdog and softlockup
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 16:46 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > May be have an arch spin lock there to update your cpu mask safely.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, this is NMI handler path so from what we protect this per-cpu data?
> > Do I miss something? /me confused
>
>
> The cpu mask is not per cpu here, this is a shared bitmap, so you
> can race against other cpus NMIs.
>
> That said, as I suggested, having a per cpu var that we set when we
> warned would be much better than a spinlock here.
Every time you think NMI and spinlock think FAIL.
--
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