[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111129212855.GR24062@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:28:55 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.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
> I'm curious to what remote events can be set by an NMI that wont take
> affect in what the NMI interrupted. I would think that NMIs should be
> treated as if they didn't exist, because they should not be calling
> anything that sets NEED_RESCHED or grabbing locks and such.
Hmm, i thought there were cases where we checked if it was in
kernel mode instead of IPIng, and assume the check is done when
returning.
But cannot come up with a concrete example right now. It may have
been wrong. Or I forgot it :)
You're right anything with interrupts should be fine because
it's just blocked.
-Andi
--
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