[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101201213513.GD6478@lenovo>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 00:35:14 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/9] x86, NMI: Remove DIE_NMI_IPI and add priorties to
handlers
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:30:34PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 09:41:28PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 05:27:25PM -0500, Don Zickus wrote:
> > > When re-ordering how the NMI handles its callbacks, a conversation started
> > > asking what DIE_NMI_IPI meant. No one could answer it.
> >
...
> > Andi do you remember what the initial idea was? Didn't find any user of it
> > even in this old commit. Just curious.
>
> The original die names were pretty much a 1:1 conversion of the hooks
> used by both the external KDB and KGDB patchkits floating around
> at that time.
>
> IIRC DIE_NMI_IPI was the one that was early in the NMI handler
> and DIE_NMI late when everything else failed.
>
> So you could use NMI_IPI when you just wanted to stop
> all CPUs with a broadcast NMI and can check that reliable
> through some memory location, and NMI when you wanted
> to drop into the debugger as a last resort.
>
>
> -Andi
>
Thanks for info Andi, good to know.
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