From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752473Ab0JRDG6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:06:58 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:36932 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751054Ab0JRDG5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:06:57 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.57,344,1283756400"; d="scan'208";a="617651545" Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] x86, NMI: Rewrite NMI handler From: Huang Ying To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Don Zickus , "mingo@redhat.com" , "hpa@zytor.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "mingo@elte.hu" , "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" In-Reply-To: <1287312163.1998.158.camel@laptop> References: <1287195738-3136-4-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <1287250157.1998.124.camel@laptop> <20101017004641.GB4140@redhat.com> <1287312163.1998.158.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:06:54 +0800 Message-ID: <1287371214.31526.23.camel@yhuang-dev> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 18:42 +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 20:46 -0400, Don Zickus wrote: > > > Hmm, well to his defense, he isn't adding DIE_NMI_IPI. That code is > > already there. He is just re-arranging it, making it look painfully > > obvious the die_chain probably isn't as efficient as it should be. > > > > I think a bunch of us agree that we need to revamp the NMI notifier to > > make it less wasteful. I was hoping we could do that in a separate patch > > that would be layered on top of Huangs. > > > > Would you object to at least consider having this patch series in a > > work-in-progress git branch that we can build on top of, with the final > > outcome containing an nmi notifier that meets your expectations? > > What's the point of keeping it in a git tree? Its just a few patches. > > We've spend more time talking about this than it would take to actually > do the patch that kills DIE_NMI_IPI. You can kill DIE_NMI_IPI. But you will add at least NMI_PRIORITY_LOCAL (like DIE_NMI_IPI), NMI_PRIORITY_GLOBAL (like original DIE_NMI). So thing is similar, just moved from one place to another place. Best Regards, Huang Ying