[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxyBYFbx=AGgJ35Dx+U8KVPktesHetYnQrYpt1QGKTrbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 12:12:44 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Perhaps a side effect regarding NMI returns
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
>
> Not sure what problem Steven thinks is there. Once you
> switched the stack any nesting is fine.
The problem is that NMI's are blocked!
We're potentially switching to another process, there is no guarantee
there will be an "iret" *anywhere* in any patch for a long time. So
any subsequent NMI's will not be able to come in.
> The reason I added them originally is to prevent the race of remote
> kernel events being delayed for a long time. With Frederic's nohz work
> this will be more important in the future. Today it would be eventually
> picked up by the regular timer interrupts.
You're just delaying another kind of event: the next NMI.
And NMI's really shouldn't be triggering any scheduling-related events afaik.
Linus
--
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