[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100819123926.GW26154@erda.amd.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:39:26 +0200
From: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.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>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
perfctrs
On 19.08.10 06:45:53, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I queued it with that part changed to:
>
> + this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
> + if ((handled > 1) ||
> + /* the next nmi could be a back-to-back nmi */
> + ((__get_cpu_var(nmi).marked == this_nmi) &&
> + (__get_cpu_var(nmi).handled > 1))) {
> + /*
> + * We could have two subsequent back-to-back nmis: The
> + * first handles more than one counter, the 2nd
> + * handles only one counter and the 3rd handles no
> + * counter.
> + *
> + * This is the 2nd nmi because the previous was
> + * handling more than one counter. We will mark the
> + * next (3rd) and then drop it if unhandled.
> + */
> + __get_cpu_var(nmi).marked = this_nmi + 1;
> + __get_cpu_var(nmi).handled = handled;
> + }
>
> return NOTIFY_STOP;
> }
I am fine with this. Thanks Peter.
-Robert
--
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center
--
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