Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755896Ab0HDQUy (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:20:54 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24101 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751203Ab0HDQUw (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:20:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:20:26 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Robert Richter , Lin Ming , Ingo Molnar , "fweisbec@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: A question of perf NMI handler Message-ID: <20100804162026.GU3353@redhat.com> References: <1280913670.20797.179.camel@minggr.sh.intel.com> <20100804100116.GH26154@erda.amd.com> <20100804140021.GN3353@redhat.com> <1280931093.1923.1194.camel@laptop> <20100804145203.GP3353@redhat.com> <1280934161.1923.1294.camel@laptop> <20100804151858.GB5130@lenovo> <20100804155002.GS3353@redhat.com> <20100804161046.GC5130@lenovo> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100804161046.GC5130@lenovo> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1443 Lines: 32 On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 08:10:46PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:50:02AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > ... > > > > > > Well, first I guess having Yinghai CC'ed is a bonus ;) > > > The second thing is that I don't get why perf handler can't be _last_ > > > call in default_do_nmi, if there were any nmi with reason (serr or parity) > > > I think they should be calling first which of course don't eliminate > > > the former issue but somewhat make it weaken. > > > > Because the reason registers are never set. If they were, then the code > > wouldn't have to walk the notify_chain. :-) > > > > maybe we're talking about different things. i meant that if there is nmi > with a reason (from 0x61) the handling of such nmi should be done before > notify_die I think (if only I not miss something behind). No we are talking about the same thing. :-) And that code is already there. The problem is the bits in register 0x61 are not always set correctly in the case of SERRs (well at least in all the cases I have dealt with). So you can easily can a flood of unknown nmis from an SERR and register 0x61 would have the PERR/SERR bits set to 0. Fun, huh? 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/