[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E679AF4.50209@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:25:24 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Xen Devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] xen/pvticketlock: disable interrupts while blocking
On 09/07/2011 06:56 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
> >
> > And hope that no other NMI was generated while we're handling this
> > one. It's a little... fragile?
>
> No. If another NMI is generated while we are processing the current one
> it should get latched. Upon completion of the current one, the cpu should
> jump right back into the nmi exception routine again. The only downside
> is when multiple NMIs come in during the processing of the current one.
> Only one can be latched, so the others get dropped.
Ah, yes, I remember now.
> But we are addressing
> that.
>
May I ask how? Detecting a back-to-back NMI?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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