From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754113Ab1I1Mh6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:37:58 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12185 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752460Ab1I1Mh5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:37:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:37:20 -0400 From: Don Zickus To: Robert Richter Cc: "x86@kernel.org" , Andi Kleen , Peter Zijlstra , "ying.huang@intel.com" , LKML , "paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , "avi@redhat.com" , "jeremy@goop.org" Subject: Re: [V6][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multiple events and unknown NMIs Message-ID: <20110928123720.GL5795@redhat.com> References: <1316805435-14832-1-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <1316805435-14832-5-git-send-email-dzickus@redhat.com> <20110928103140.GD6063@erda.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110928103140.GD6063@erda.amd.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 28, 2011 at 12:31:40PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote: > On 23.09.11 15:17:13, Don Zickus wrote: > > @@ -89,6 +89,15 @@ static int notrace __kprobes nmi_handle(unsigned int type, struct pt_regs *regs) > > > > handled += a->handler(type, regs); > > > > + /* > > + * Optimization: only loop once if this is not a > > + * back-to-back NMI. The idea is nothing is dropped > > + * on the first NMI, only on the second of a back-to-back > > + * NMI. No need to waste cycles going through all the > > + * handlers. > > + */ > > + if (!b2b && handled) > > + break; > > I don't think we can leave this in. As said, there are cases that 2 > nmis trigger but the handler is called only once. Only the first would > be handled then, and the second get lost cause there is no 2nd nmi > call. Right. Avi, Jeremy what was your objection that needed this optimization in the first place? > > > } > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > @@ -251,7 +260,13 @@ unknown_nmi_error(unsigned char reason, struct pt_regs *regs) > > { > > int handled; > > > > - handled = nmi_handle(NMI_UNKNOWN, regs); > > + /* > > + * Use 'false' as back-to-back NMIs are dealt with one level up. > > + * Of course this makes having multiple 'unknown' handlers useless > > + * as only the first one is ever run (unless it can actually determine > > + * if it caused the NMI) > > + */ > > + handled = nmi_handle(NMI_UNKNOWN, regs, false); > > if (handled) > > return; > > #ifdef CONFIG_MCA > > @@ -274,19 +289,49 @@ unknown_nmi_error(unsigned char reason, struct pt_regs *regs) > > pr_emerg("Dazed and confused, but trying to continue\n"); > > } > > > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(bool, swallow_nmi); > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, last_nmi_rip); > > + > > static notrace __kprobes void default_do_nmi(struct pt_regs *regs) > > { > > unsigned char reason = 0; > > int handled; > > + bool b2b = false; > > > > /* > > * CPU-specific NMI must be processed before non-CPU-specific > > * NMI, otherwise we may lose it, because the CPU-specific > > * NMI can not be detected/processed on other CPUs. > > */ > > - handled = nmi_handle(NMI_LOCAL, regs); > > - if (handled) > > + > > + /* > > + * Back-to-back NMIs are interesting because they can either > > + * be two NMI or more than two NMIs (any thing over two is dropped > > + * due to NMI being edge-triggered). If this is the second half > > + * of the back-to-back NMI, assume we dropped things and process > > + * more handlers. Otherwise reset the 'swallow' NMI behaviour > > + */ > > + if (regs->ip == __this_cpu_read(last_nmi_rip)) > > + b2b = true; > > + else > > + __this_cpu_write(swallow_nmi, false); > > + > > + __this_cpu_write(last_nmi_rip, regs->ip); > > Just a minor thing and if you make a new version of this patch: You > could move the write to the else branch. Ah, true. Thanks. Cheers, Don