[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150608202658.GF5877@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 22:26:58 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: "Chen, Gong" <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4 Rebase] x86, MCE: Avoid potential deadlock in MCE
context
On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 08:03:08PM +0000, Luck, Tony wrote:
> @@ -156,7 +156,8 @@ void mce_log(struct mce *mce)
> /* Emit the trace record: */
> trace_mce_record(mce);
>
> - atomic_notifier_call_chain(&x86_mce_decoder_chain, 0, mce);
> + mce_genpool_add(mce);
> + irq_work_queue(&mce_irq_work);
>
> Is it safe to call irq_work_queue() from MCE context?
Yeah, we're using it in contexts like:
do_nmi
|-> default_do_nmi
|-> nmi_handle
|->irq_work_queue
for example. I think that is good enough for #MC. :)
> If that is OK, then I don't have any concerns.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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