[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1312212103.2617.495.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:21:43 +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>,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] perf, x86: Implement IBS interrupt handler
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 07:32 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Ok, I will run some excessive testing of this. If this turns out to be
> a problem I will change the code. Could this be on top of this patch
> set then?
Sure, if you somehow end up duplicating some logic I think you know
about this common.c file you proposed ;-)
I kinda lost the current state of affairs wrt spurious NMIs, I think
there's still a few reports out there. I recently read through some
Intel errata and found the Intel PMU can send double PMIs under some
circumstances (just to keep life interesting).
I also haven't checked up on what the perf_event_nmi_handler() magic
looks today, so I can't say if its a problem or not, but I thought I'd
just mention it.
--
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