[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140216194330.GE32005@two.firstfloor.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 20:43:30 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, mingo@...nel.org,
eranian@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, nmi: fix unknown NMI warning
The best APIC documentation are the old data sheets for the external
APIC chips. I don't know if they cover things in such detail.
> In this case the latter NMI will actually have an overflow state to
> process so it's not a spurious NMI.
But we cannot distinguish it right? The spurious detector would
trigger in any case.
>
> > And if we're in a state that PMIs get re-raised quickly, we should either
> > regulate the period down or start throttling.
>
> It could be a different counter; where both run at 'normal' periods but
> just near miss each other by accident.
That's true.
It would be only a problem if they somehow become synchronized that
this happens very commonly. The usual defense against things like
that is to add a little randomization (I remember Stephane had
a patch for that some time ago). Also I believe it helps to have
the periods be prime numbers. But right now don't have any evidence
it's a real problem. I presume there's enough noise on a typical
setup that any such states disappear again quickly enough.
-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