From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751377Ab0I3EEs (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:04:48 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51998 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750894Ab0I3EEr (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:04:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:04:32 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: huang ying Cc: Huang Ying , Robert Richter , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andi Kleen Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 7/7] x86, NMI, Remove do_nmi_callback logic Message-ID: <20100930040432.GD26290@redhat.com> References: <1285549026-5008-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1285549026-5008-7-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <20100927104426.GD32222@erda.amd.com> <20100927134341.GQ13563@erda.amd.com> <20100927151607.GX26290@redhat.com> <1285633705.20791.84.camel@yhuang-dev> <20100928151924.GJ26290@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:55:58PM +0800, huang ying wrote: > Hi, Don, > > I think we all agree that to use order to determine the reason/source > of NMI. The difference is that I want to keep as many direct calls in > default_do_nmi() as possible, while you guys want to wrap almost all > code in default_do_nmi() into notifier handler and leave only one > notify_die() in defualt_do_nmi(). And I want to use different die_val > (and their calling order in default_do_nmi()) to determine the order > while you guys want to use priority (based on its value) to determine > the order. Well, I just wanted to see if we can minimize the number of times we walked the die_chain. Priorities was an interesting idea, I am not sure it works out. Registering two handlers, seems clunky. But I am open to the discussions. > > On the other hand, I think we should call corresponding DIE_NMIxxx > before the default operations, such as for watchdog, call > DIE_NMIWATCHDOG before go panic, for unknown nmi, call DIE_NMIUNKNOWN > before the default processing (may panic). > > I think it is important to distinguish between die chain used to > determine the source/reason of NMI and the die chain used to see if > any other driver wanted to do some processing before the default > operation. I guess I still prefer to take your patch set with its change and then layer any new ideas on top. I have a feeling this discussion could go on forever regarding how die_chains can work. Cheers, Don