[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100614151232.GQ4894@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:12:32 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Fr??d??ric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 04:44:03PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I think the perf event subsytem can log events in NMI context already and
> > deliver them to userspace when the NMI is done. This is why I think Ingo
> > wants MCE to be updated to sit on top of the perf event subsytem to avoid
> > re-invent everything again.
>
> perf is not solving the problem this is trying to solve.
>
> > Then again I do not know enough about the MCE stuff to understand what you
> > mean when an event comes in but you can't handle it in an NMI-safe
> > context. An example would be helpful.
>
> At least for MCE hwpoison recovery needs to sleep and you obviously cannot sleep in
> NMI like context. The way it's done is to first do a self interrupt, then do a work queue
> wakeup and finally the sleeping operations.
>
> perf does not fit into this because it has no way to process such an event
> inside the kernel.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the example.
Cheers,
Don
--
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