[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F584AFC.9070300@oss.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 15:00:28 +0900
From: Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao
<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] boot: add early NMI counter
On 03/08/2012 01:50 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Fernando Luis Vázquez Cao<fernando@....ntt.co.jp> writes:
>
>> Subject: [PATCH] boot: add early NMI counter
>>
>> From: Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao<fernando@....ntt.co.jp>
>>
>> We currently ignore early NMIs but it would be nice to be able to
>> know whether they actually occurred.
>>
>> This patch adds an early NMI counter and exports it trough
>> /proc/interrupts with the name of ENM (Early NMI).
> For a userspace interface I suspect we just want to dump the count
> into the NMI counter.
>
> It probably makes sense to have a separate variable in early boot like
> you do, but then about the time we setup the normal NMI handler move the
> NMI count over and possibly do something like reboot if that is our
> policy.
I am fine with either approach. I guess that is the x86 maintainers'
call. Ingo, Thomas, Peter, what do you think? Should I add a new
entry to /proc/interrupts or move over the early NMI count to the
existing per-cpu NMI counter?
Thanks,
Fernando
--
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