[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101118212604.GH6028@lenovo>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:26:04 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@...driver.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 0/6] x86, NMI: give NMI handler a face-lift
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:16:38PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:01:59AM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 03:52:03PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > ok, Don, but you mentioned there are false alarms on real P4 machine, right?
> > >
> > > Yeah, there are two problems. One is using kgdb tests on kvm guests. The
> > > other is using kgdb tests on a bare metal p4 machine.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Don
> > >
> >
> > ok, thanks, Jason just confirmed it too. I thing if we run with kgdb armed
> > it (kgdb) should obtain nmi handler first and perf only after.
> >
> > actually I'm not sure why p4 hangs here while core passes the test, most
>
> because p4 reads the wrong high register which comes back zero. This will
> always set overflow=1, thus swallowing all NMI if something like the nmi
> watchdog has perf active.
>
> Cheers,
> Don
>
oh, damn, indeed! Thanks Don! I'll cook patch sortly.
Cyrill
--
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