[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F192F37C0@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:27:49 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"bp@...64.org" <bp@...64.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86: auto poll/interrupt mode switch for CMC to stop
CMC storm
> So can you please explain how this is better than having this strict
> per cpu and avoid all the mess which comes with that patch? The
> approach of letting global state be modified in a random manner is
> just doomed.
Well doomed sounds bad :-) ... and I think I now agree that we should
get rid of global state and have polling vs. CMCI mode be per-cpu. It
means that it will take fractionally longer to react to a storm, but
on the plus side we'll naturally set storm mode on just the cpus
that are seeing it on a multi-socket system without having to check
topology data ... which should be better for the case where a noisy
source of CMCI is plaguing one socket, while other sockets have some
much lower rate of CMCI that we'd still like to log.
Thanks for the review.
-Tony
--
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