[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101110184931.GI22410@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:49:31 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mchehab@...hat.com" <mchehab@...hat.com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/Requirements/Design] h/w error reporting
* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 10:23 -0800, Luck, Tony wrote:
> > > A few of things that pop up quickly are:
> > >
> > > 1) lockless
> >
> > This is a clear requirement for use in h/w error
> > reporting too. Taking locks in NMI or machine
> > check handler isn't an option.
>
> Don't worry, lots of PMIs are NMIs, perf needs to be fully NMI safe
> otherwise things simply don't work.
Yep, in fact perf was fully NMI safe earlier than the ftrace ring-buffer.
When perf code is NMI unsafe we notice it very quickly. I regularly record millions
of events per second.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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