Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Feb 2020 21:52:24 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] #MC mess
Message-ID: <20200218205224.GT14449@zn.tnic>
References: <20200218173150.GK14449@zn.tnic>
 <20200218131158.693eeefc@gandalf.local.home>
 <20200218195035.GN14449@zn.tnic>
 <20200218150850.224d9b8e@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200218150850.224d9b8e@gandalf.local.home>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 03:08:50PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> You could have the msr_tracepoint_active() check this per cpu variable?
> 
> msr reading and writing is rather slow, and I'm sure reading a per_cpu
> variable is going to be in the noise of it.

Yeah, I was worrying about using the tracing MSR variants in NMI context
but Peter says tracing should do in_nmi() if it isn't doing so.

Same with #MC: we hold a subsequent #MC from getting raised with MCIP -
thanks Tony - but we can have other exceptions raised while in the #MC
handler. That too should be taken care of with the in_nmi() thing.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette