Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:17:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:53 -0500 Received: from delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl ([153.19.144.1]:55968 "EHLO delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:36 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:05:58 +0100 (MET) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Petr Vandrovec cc: Mikael Pettersson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@transmeta.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection o In-Reply-To: <14E3B9B878C2@vcnet.vc.cvut.cz> Message-ID: Organization: Technical University of Gdansk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote: > So it came to my mind - why (on K7 we easy can, as counter has 48 bits) > we do not reload NMI watchdog in each timer interrupt with 5sec timeout, > and if we receive even one NMI, we are locked up? It should increase > performance, as we'll do same number of MSR writes anyway (100/s), but > we will not receive any NMI during normal operation, so we save time > spent in processing this. Or do I miss something? I guess it's the external watchdog heritage. The code is common for both kinds of the watchdog at the moment. It might get separated, I suppose. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available + - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/