From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756823Ab1K2V27 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:28:59 -0500 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:48371 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756710Ab1K2V24 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:28:56 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:28:55 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Andi Kleen , Linus Torvalds , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "H. Peter Anvin" , Frederic Weisbecker , Thomas Gleixner , Mathieu Desnoyers , Paul Turner Subject: Re: Perhaps a side effect regarding NMI returns Message-ID: <20111129212855.GR24062@one.firstfloor.org> References: <1322539673.17003.45.camel@frodo> <1322598920.17003.71.camel@frodo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1322598920.17003.71.camel@frodo> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I'm curious to what remote events can be set by an NMI that wont take > affect in what the NMI interrupted. I would think that NMIs should be > treated as if they didn't exist, because they should not be calling > anything that sets NEED_RESCHED or grabbing locks and such. Hmm, i thought there were cases where we checked if it was in kernel mode instead of IPIng, and assume the check is done when returning. But cannot come up with a concrete example right now. It may have been wrong. Or I forgot it :) You're right anything with interrupts should be fine because it's just blocked. -Andi