Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753943Ab1CUQ40 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:56:26 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:52708 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752343Ab1CUQ4Y (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:56:24 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pwnKGNrg7HpbbTX00igDqysdeXp/dCj3qJCSO+aUl1+cIbG0vFHv19GdLTK3f0detc T4MEqWH5lDQ1lCOoZ7xFIBIFnq29Vqa8h5UV/0dm3hCTUK3aFhtKvnZxs/aiZCZXZ6Ua 4EJoGn/SA9Y2w6HYrm3solIiclsU23G4rgRes= Message-ID: <4D878042.9080708@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:43:46 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar , Don Zickus CC: Jack Steiner , tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, UV: Fix NMI handler for UV platforms References: <20110321160135.GA31562@sgi.com> <20110321161425.GC23614@elte.hu> <4D877C4B.9090602@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D877C4B.9090602@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1115 Lines: 40 On 03/21/2011 07:26 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: ... >> >> Such code is extremely ugly. Please *reduce* the number of is_uv_system() type >> of hacks in core x86 code, not increase it! >> >> Any reason why a higher priority for the UV NMI handler cannot solve the 'perf >> eats the NMI' problem? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ingo > > Yeah, Don has made priority system for NMI notifiers. Need to look in. > I think Jack might need to setup priority for his notifier, like static struct notifier_block uv_dump_stack_nmi_nb = { .notifier_call = uv_handle_nmi, .priority = NMI_LOCAL_HIGH_PRIOR+1, }; so it would be called before perf nmi. Don, am I right? Since for perf nmis we do have static __read_mostly struct notifier_block perf_event_nmi_notifier = { .notifier_call = perf_event_nmi_handler, .next = NULL, .priority = NMI_LOCAL_LOW_PRIOR, }; -- 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/