Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755319AbaFPPWa (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:22:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33305 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751448AbaFPPW3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:22:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:21:47 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: HATAYAMA Daisuke , acme@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matt@console-pimps.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: ignore CondChgd bit to avoid false NMI handling Message-ID: <20140616152147.GI177152@redhat.com> References: <20140611073028.9847.65622.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <20140611085448.GI3213@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140611115413.GE3588@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140612.160011.167980216.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> <20140612073716.GR6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140612073716.GR6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 09:37:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:00:11PM +0900, HATAYAMA Daisuke wrote: > > Also, I checked cpuid on the system with Neharlem processor where I > > have never seen CondChg bit is set. > > > > [root@localhost ~]# ./cpuid -r > > CPU 0: > > 0x00000000 0x00: eax=0x0000000b ebx=0x756e6547 ecx=0x6c65746e edx=0x49656e69 > > 0x00000001 0x00: eax=0x000206e6 ebx=0x40200800 ecx=0x00bce3bd edx=0xbfebfbff > > > > 0x0000000a 0x00: eax=0x07300403 ebx=0x00000044 ecx=0x00000000 edx=0x00000603 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > So, cpuid tells that CondChg bit is supported on this processor, too. > > Yeah, I can't remember ever seeing that bit on nhm/wsm either. Weird > stuff that. > > > > In any case, the proposed patch seems fine, just needs a better > > > changelog. > > > > > > > I see. > > > > I'll write that the problem is that any NMI could be robbed by NMI > > watchdog explicitly. Now only patch title says this explicitly. This > > is your first comment. > > Yeah, since that is the actual problem, its good to be clear on that. > > > About CondChgd bit, I cannot write more than I see on actual > > system. If it's necessary to describe more about CondChgd bit, it > > would be appreciated if someone tell me more information about it. > > I think we've found all 2 sentences the SDM has about that and unless > someone from Intel is going to come and explain why they wasted precious > silicon on this I suppose it will remain a mystery. No need to update on > that. Just to add to the mix, we (Red Hat) has a customer with the same problem. I told them to fight it out with Intel to figure out why that bit is non-zero at boot. Partly because I didn't feel like send a patch upstream and feel the wrath of Peter Z. descend upon me. :-) So if this patch is acceptable, I would ack it as it fixes our customer's problem too. Cheers, Don -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/