[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100811123937.GB4879@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:39:37 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
perfctrs
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 04:44:55AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> May be make it just a pending bit. I mean not something that can
> go further 1, because you can't have more than 1 pending anyway. I don't
> know how that could happen you get accidental perctr_skip > 1, may be
> expected pending NMIs that don't happen somehow, but better be paranoid with
> that, as it's about trying not to miss hardware errors.
I guess I was thinking about the SMI case where it drains the perfctr(s)
and then retriggers them but I guess even in that case the most you can
have is one extra NMI. So yeah, you are probably right, I should have
used a flag instead of incrementing.
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