Re: [PATCH] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs

Don Zickus
2010-08-11T12:39:59Z

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 04:44:55AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> May be make it just a pending bit. I mean not something that can
> go further 1, because you can't have more than 1 pending anyway. I don't
> know how that could happen you get accidental perctr_skip > 1, may be
> expected pending NMIs that don't happen somehow, but better be paranoid with
> that, as it's about trying not to miss hardware errors.

I guess I was thinking about the SMI case where it drains the perfctr(s)
and then retriggers them but I guess even in that case the most you can
have is one extra NMI. So yeah, you are probably right, I should have
used a flag instead of incrementing.

Cheers,
Don