[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101011203518.GB24567@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:35:18 -0400
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 3/6] x86, NMI, Rewrite NMI handler
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 06:13:55PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-09 at 14:49 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > notify_die(DIE_NMI_IPI);
> > notify_die(DIE_NMI);
> > /* process io port 0x61 */
> > nmi_watchdog_touch();
> > unknown_nmi();
>
> Why keep NMI_IPI? What the heck is it for?
>
> I'd like to see:
>
> DIE_NMI
> DIE_NMI_UNKNOWN
>
> In DIE_NMI we walk the chain and deal with NMIs, in DIE_NMI_UNKNOWN we
> try to consume extra NMIs where possible (like the much discussed extra
> PMU interrupts).
Yeah, there was another much discussed thread about creating an NMI
notifier chain (instead of using the die_chain). And then re-arrange
handlers according to a priority scheme.
I wouldn't mind have Ingo commit most of this patchset to a temporary
work-in-progress branch and have us build more changes on top. A lot of
these changes are a good stepping stone towards simplifying things.
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