[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwehof2kZCENTOFFobWqVvm04BZer6Cc-fQfVvcCE1NVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 20:53:55 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: 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 Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> If enabling interrupts also enables NMIs, then there's no side effect.
The only thing that enables NMI's again is 'iret', afaik. Of course,
it can be *any* iret, so once you enable interrupts, you can get a
timer interrupt, and the timer interrupt returning with iret will
re-enable NMI's then too.
I would suggest that the actual NMI handler itself should probably
never use that paranoid exit at all, and just always use a regular
iret. Screw scheduling and TIF checks.
Probably only the exceptions that can happen *during* NMI (eg debug,
stack exception, double-fault etc) should use the paranoid versions
that try to avoid using iret.
Because I think you're right - we shouldn't call schedule() from
within the NMI handler, even if we do enable interrupts and switch to
the normal stack. Even if it probably does happen to work normally.
But I have to admit to not necessarily thinking it through a lot.
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