Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:59:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:59:21 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:34323 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 07:59:12 -0500 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:59:08 +0100 From: Dave Jones To: Alan Cox Cc: Daniel Phillips , Ian Duggan , Robert Love , linux kernel Subject: Re: 2.4.18 Preempt Freezeups Message-ID: <20020317135908.A4006@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Alan Cox , Daniel Phillips , Ian Duggan , Robert Love , linux kernel In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 03:31:24AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > Think about profiling registers, mtrrs, msrs, and so forth. For example > if we had thread handling MCE traps we would hit a problem. As it happens > MCE is an interrupt so its all nice. Ah, I'm glad you mentioned this. It's reminded me that my timer-based 'check for non-fatal machine check and log' code needs some work for SMP.. Are routines called with smp_call_function() preempt safe, or must they have extra locking added ? -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - 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/