[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1311958726.5890.411.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 18:58:46 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] perf, x86: Implement IBS interrupt handler
On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:46 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> +static int __kprobes
> +perf_ibs_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
> + unsigned long cmd, void *__args)
> +{
> + struct die_args *args = __args;
> + int handled = 0;
> +
> + switch (cmd) {
> + case DIE_NMI:
> + break;
> + default:
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> + }
> +
> + handled += perf_ibs_handle_irq(&perf_ibs_fetch, args->regs);
> + handled += perf_ibs_handle_irq(&perf_ibs_op, args->regs);
> +
> + if (!handled)
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +
> + inc_irq_stat(apic_perf_irqs);
> +
> + return NOTIFY_STOP;
> +}
So IBS cannot trigger the whole unknown NMI business? Wouldn't ibs_op
triggering while ibs_fetch just started latch the NMI line, the
in-progress NMI would handle both, and we then end up with a spare NMI?
--
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