[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTilyV7XkZCsD5uNGhdTAGUUEvR5xIuvbwQGiMYvP@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:07:42 +0800
From: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Fr??d??ric Weisbecker" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, "H.PeterA" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Unified NMI delayed call mechanism
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> The proper, generic approach would be to enable softirq notifications (on x86)
> from NMI contexts as well (it's actually possible without overhead),
Yes. I will do that. And I think self interrupt can be used as the
short-cut for soft_irq if available. The next soft_irq may be too late
if there is too few interrupts.
> and to
> extend user return notifiers with the logical next step: nmi return notifiers.
> If presented in such a form then those could use softirqs for atomic callbacks
> and per cpu kthreads for sleepable callbacks, etc.
NMI return notifiers fired in soft_irq?
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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