Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932251AbZKDRnF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:43:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932254AbZKDRnD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:43:03 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:44943 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757539AbZKDRm7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:42:59 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:42:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Aristeu Rozanski , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric?= Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: introduce NMI_AUTO as nmi_watchdog option Message-ID: <20091104174253.GB16091@elte.hu> References: <20091103171054.GB25437@redhat.com> <20091104114630.GA16993@elte.hu> <38974.1257337997@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38974.1257337997@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1423 Lines: 34 * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:46:30 +0100, Ingo Molnar said: > > > What i'd like to see for the NMI watchdog is much more ambitious > > than this: the use of perf events to run a periodic NMI callback. > > > > The NMI watchdog would cause the creation of a per-cpu perf_event > > structure (in-kernel). All x86 CPUs that have perf event support > > (the majority of them) will thus be able to have an NMI watchdog > > using a nice, generic piece of code and we'd be able to phase out > > the open-coded NMI watchdog code. > > What happens on older/smaller x86 CPUs that don't have any native > support for perf events? I think we want to keep their NMI watchdog implementation - but new work should go towards a perf-events based NMI watchdog. Note that in practice a working NMI watchdog implementation on an old/small x86 CPU can be taken and turned into a minimal PMU driver: one that can provide cycle based NMI events. There's no 'full' PMU support needed to get a fair amount of perf events functionality - and some of those CPUs dont even have a PMU. So there's no hardware barrier of entry. Ingo -- 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/