linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86, NMI: Allow NMI reason io port (0x61) to be processed on any CPU

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1287624309.19320.52.camel@yhuang-dev>
Date:	Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:25:09 +0800
From:	Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] x86, NMI: Allow NMI reason io port (0x61) to be
 processed on any CPU

On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 09:18 +0800, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 08:40:07AM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-10-20 at 22:27 +0800, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > I thought the point of this patch was to remove that restriction in the
> > > nmi handler, which would allow future patches to re-route these NMIs to
> > > another cpu, thus finally allowing people to hot-remove the bsp cpu, no?
> > 
> > Yes. We just want to make it possible to hot-remove the bsp cpu. Because
> > IOAPIC is configurable, I think it is possible to configure IOAPIC to
> > send PCI SERR NMI to one CPU while IOCK NMI to another CPU. Why not
> > support this situation too? It does not harm anything but performance to
> 
> Why would we want to?  It seems simpler to have one cpu dedicated to
> handling the external NMIs.

If we can guarantee that these NMIs will be only sent to one CPU, I am
fine with trylock.

> > use raw_spin_lock() instead of raw_spin_trylock() here. And for hardware
> > error processing, performance is not so important in fact.
> 
> I don't know.  I was always a little uncomfortable with a spin_lock there,
> so I am more supportive of a trylock.

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/