[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa20a835-4059-f695-a0cf-f862d6313e17@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:27:52 -0500
From: "Alex G." <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, lenb@...nel.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, tbaicar@...eaurora.org, will.deacon@....com,
shiju.jose@...wei.com, zjzhang@...eaurora.org,
gengdongjiu@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alex_gagniuc@...lteam.com, austin_bolen@...l.com,
shyam_iyer@...l.com, devel@...ica.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
robert.moore@...el.com, erik.schmauss@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/4] acpi: apei: Do not panic() when correctable
errors are marked as fatal.
On 04/19/2018 10:35 AM, James Morse wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> (I haven't read through all this yet, just on this one:)
>
> On 04/19/2018 03:57 PM, Alex G. wrote:
>> Maybe it's better move the AER handling to NMI/IRQ context, since
>> ghes_handle_aer() is only scheduling the real AER andler, and is irq
>> safe. I'm scratching my head about why we're messing with IRQ work from
>> NMI context, instead of just scheduling a regular handler to take care
>> of things.
>
> We can't touch schedule_work_on() from NMI context as it takes spinlocks
> and
> disables interrupts. (see __queue_work()) The NMI may have interrupted
> IRQ-context code
> that was already holding the same locks.
>
> IRQ-work behaves differently, it uses an llist for the work and an arch
> code hook
> to raise a self-IPI.
That makes sense. Thank you!
Alex
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists