From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757375Ab1CBTq1 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:46:27 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34989 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752980Ab1CBTqZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:46:25 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 14:46:11 -0500 From: Don Zickus To: Cyrill Gorcunov Cc: Ingo Molnar , "Huang, Ying" , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip 2/2 resend] x86, traps: Drop nmi_reason_lock until it is really needed Message-ID: <20110302194611.GZ11359@redhat.com> References: <4D6E631B.6040701@openvz.org> <20110302154645.GA11827@elte.hu> <4D6E6886.2060707@openvz.org> <20110302160315.GA12620@elte.hu> <4D6E6CB6.7000700@openvz.org> <20110302184053.GW11359@redhat.com> <4D6E9700.50501@openvz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D6E9700.50501@openvz.org> 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, Mar 02, 2011 at 10:14:08PM +0300, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > > > > Now this spinlock doesn't affect them, because they registered an nmi > > handler to catch it and dump their stack (I modified the code to use > > DIE_NMIUNKNOWN instead of DIE_NMI to avoid conflict with the > > nmi_watchdog). But I don't know what the affect is, if that spinlock is > > not there (I sent a private email to SGI inquiring, their guy wasn't > > around this week). > > Don, do you know -- was new nmi-watchdog system tested with UV machine > somewhere? They are testing it now, I am working through the issues with them. Cheers, Don