[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100804163930.GE5130@lenovo>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 20:39:30 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: A question of perf NMI handler
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:20:26PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
...
> > >
> > > Because the reason registers are never set. If they were, then the code
> > > wouldn't have to walk the notify_chain. :-)
> > >
> >
> > maybe we're talking about different things. i meant that if there is nmi
> > with a reason (from 0x61) the handling of such nmi should be done before
> > notify_die I think (if only I not miss something behind).
>
> No we are talking about the same thing. :-) And that code is already
seems not actually ;)
> there. The problem is the bits in register 0x61 are not always set
> correctly in the case of SERRs (well at least in all the cases I have
> dealt with). So you can easily can a flood of unknown nmis from an SERR
> and register 0x61 would have the PERR/SERR bits set to 0. Fun, huh?
if there is nothing in nmi_sc the code flows into another branch. And
it hits the problem of perf events eating all nmi giving no chance the
others. So we take if (!(reason & 0xc0)) case and hit DIE_NMI_IPI
(/me scratching the head why it's not under CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC) and
drop all code, unpleasant.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
-- Cyrill
--
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