From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755562Ab1IGRWf (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:22:35 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12036 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755399Ab1IGRWd (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:22:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:21:17 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Avi Kivity Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Marcelo Tosatti , KVM , Andi Kleen , Xen Devel , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Stefano Stabellini Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] xen/pvticketlock: disable interrupts while blocking Message-ID: <20110907172117.GY5795@redhat.com> References: <20110906151408.GA7459@redhat.com> <4E66615E.8070806@goop.org> <20110906182758.GR5795@redhat.com> <4E66EF86.9070200@redhat.com> <20110907134411.GV5795@redhat.com> <4E678992.5050709@redhat.com> <20110907155657.GX5795@redhat.com> <4E679AF4.50209@redhat.com> <20110907165203.GQ6838@redhat.com> <4E67A551.4000502@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E67A551.4000502@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:09:37PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 09/07/2011 07:52 PM, Don Zickus wrote: > >> > >> May I ask how? Detecting a back-to-back NMI? > > > >Pretty boring actually. Currently we execute an NMI handler until one of > >them returns handled. Then we stop. This may cause us to miss an NMI in > >the case of multiple NMIs at once. Now we are changing it to execute > >_all_ the handlers to make sure we didn't miss one. > > That's going to be pretty bad for kvm - those handlers become a lot > more expensive since they involve reading MSRs. Even worse if we > start using NMIs as a wakeup for pv spinlocks as provided by this > patchset. Oh. > > >But then the downside > >here is we accidentally handle an NMI that was latched. This would cause > >a 'Dazed on confused' message as that NMI was already handled by the > >previous NMI. > > > >We are working on an algorithm to detect this condition and flag it > >(nothing complicated). But it may never be perfect. > > > >On the other hand, what else are we going to do with an edge-triggered > >shared interrupt line? > > > > How about, during NMI, save %rip to a per-cpu variable. Handle just > one cause. If, on the next NMI, we hit the same %rip, assume > back-to-back NMI has occured and now handle all causes. I had a similar idea a couple of months ago while debugging a continuous flow of back-to-back NMIs from a stress-test perf application and I couldn't get it to work. But let me try it again, because it does make sense as an optimization. Thanks, Don