Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933009Ab0HJTYd (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:24:33 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:61310 "EHLO mail-ew0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932210Ab0HJTYb (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:24:31 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=SyllzS2qYnHcsW+5pIMLl0sioKYr2H03ZI9cm04QiBLkv2gBQqsO7h989Sv5fY7hbz A3fzcAUfiiep+VO3Mq79Usw/ORM/iyylentUYiAVFtz7i8DNnZCaYzGK57Mw7j2MH9rE ECqb/YE67PWz3YG4U9aEvClnZlBEuvw90AVMU= Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:24:28 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Robert Richter Cc: Don Zickus , Peter Zijlstra , Lin Ming , Ingo Molnar , "fweisbec@gmail.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , Yinghai Lu , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs Message-ID: <20100810192428.GE6893@lenovo> References: <20100804192634.GG5130@lenovo> <20100806065203.GR26154@erda.amd.com> <20100806142131.GA1874@redhat.com> <20100809194829.GB26154@erda.amd.com> <20100809200245.GF6056@lenovo> <20100810074200.GE26154@erda.amd.com> <20100810161627.GB6893@lenovo> <20100810164124.GK26154@erda.amd.com> <20100810172451.GD6893@lenovo> <20100810190541.GN26154@erda.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100810190541.GN26154@erda.amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1134 Lines: 31 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:05:41PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 10.08.10 13:24:51, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > It gets masked on NMI arrival, at least for some models (Core Duo, P4, > > P6 M and I suspect more theh that, that was the reason oprofile has > > it, also there is a note in SDM V3a page 643). > > Yes, that's right, I never noticed that. Maybe it is better to > implement the apic write it in model specific code then. > Perhaps we can make it simplier I think, ie like it was before -- we just move it under your new DIE_NMIUNKNOWN, in separate patch of course. Though I'm fine with either way. (actually it's interesting to know wouldn't we leave lvt masked when we hit 'second delayed nmi has arrived' situation, I guess we didn't hit it before in real yet :-) > -Robert > > -- > Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. > Operating System Research Center > -- Cyrill -- 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/