From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/2 V7] qemu,qmp: add inject-nmi qmp command Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:32:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4D9E0352.2050204@codemonkey.ws> References: <4D74A8C9.2020408@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D74A974.6090509@cn.fujitsu.com> <20110404105949.GA30324@redhat.com> <4D99BF99.1040305@redhat.com> <4D99C22C.4070401@codemonkey.ws> <20110406144723.45333682@doriath> <4D9CAAF9.7000509@codemonkey.ws> <20110406150818.56707b9b@doriath> <4D9CAE4B.7080305@siemens.com> <20110406160020.373cb5a2@doriath> <4D9CC044.2000705@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lai Jiangshan , Jiangshan , kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jan Kiszka , Markus Armbruster , Luiz Capitulino , Avi Kivity To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]:46024 "EHLO mail-gx0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756400Ab1DGScz (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2011 14:32:55 -0400 Received: by gxk21 with SMTP id 21so1143556gxk.19 for ; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:32:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 04/07/2011 01:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 April 2011 20:34, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/index.jsp?topic=/liaai/crashdump/liaaicrashdumpnmiipmi.htm >> >> If an OS is totally hosed (spinning with interrupts disabled), and NMI can >> be used to generate a crash dump. >> >> It's a debug feature and modelling it exactly the way we are probably makes >> sense for other architectures too. The real semantics are basically force >> guest crash dump. > Ah, right. (There isn't really an equivalent to this on ARM since > we don't have a real NMI equivalent. So any implementation for ARM > qemu would be board dependent since you could wire a watchdog up to > any interrupt.) > > Should we try to pick a command name that says what it's supposed to > do rather than how it happens to be implemented on x86 ? Yup, I was thinking the same thing after I sent the note above. If we call it 'force-crash-dump', we can implement it as an NMI on target-i386 and potentially as something else on a different target. Regards, Anthony Liguori > -- PMM >