From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@amd.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
ying.huang@intel.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jeremy@goop.org
Subject: Re: [V4][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multiple events and unknown NMIs
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:22:10 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E70AA82.5050409@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110914130027.GU5795@redhat.com>
On 09/14/2011 04:00 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:08:13AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 09/13/2011 11:58 PM, Don Zickus wrote:
> > >Previous patches allow the NMI subsystem to process multipe NMI events
> > >in one NMI. As previously discussed this can cause issues when an event
> > >triggered another NMI but is processed in the current NMI. This causes the
> > >next NMI to go unprocessed and become an 'unknown' NMI.
> > >
> > >To handle this, we first have to flag whether or not the NMI handler handled
> > >more than one event or not. If it did, then there exists a chance that
> > >the next NMI might be already processed. Once the NMI is flagged as a
> > >candidate to be swallowed, we next look for a back-to-back NMI condition.
> > >
> > >This is determined by looking at the %rip from pt_regs. If it is the same
> > >as the previous NMI, it is assumed the cpu did not have a chance to jump
> > >back into a non-NMI context and execute code and instead handled another NMI.
> > >
> > >If both of those conditions are true then we will swallow any unknown NMI.
> > >
> > >There still exists a chance that we accidentally swallow a real unknown NMI,
> > >but for now things seem better.
> >
> > Patch looks good, but the changelog is outdated.
>
> Perhaps, but I tried rewriting most of it to reflect the current changes.
> Was there something obvious in there that I missed? I re-read it a few
> times and can't figure out what part might be outdated (not that I
> disagree with you, I just want to update it).
>
It's not really outdated (I guess I misread it). However it emphasises
the nmi swallowing part (which I guess was the focus of the first
version) and doesn't really talk about doing just one source in ordinary
NMIs and processing all sources in second (and third...) back-to-back
NMIs. I'd add something about that.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-14 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-13 20:58 [V4][PATCH 0/6] x86, nmi: new NMI handling routines Don Zickus
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 1/6] x86, nmi: split out nmi from traps.c Don Zickus
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 2/6] x86, nmi: create new NMI handler routines Don Zickus
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 3/6] x86, nmi: wire up NMI handlers to new routines Don Zickus
2011-09-13 22:49 ` Corey Minyard
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multiple events and unknown NMIs Don Zickus
2011-09-14 7:08 ` Avi Kivity
2011-09-14 13:00 ` Don Zickus
2011-09-14 13:22 ` Avi Kivity [this message]
2011-09-14 15:03 ` Don Zickus
2011-09-14 12:56 ` Don Zickus
2011-09-14 20:20 ` Robert Richter
2011-09-14 16:26 ` Robert Richter
2011-09-14 17:58 ` Don Zickus
2011-09-14 20:16 ` Robert Richter
2011-09-14 20:44 ` Don Zickus
2011-09-15 16:55 ` Robert Richter
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 5/6] x86, nmi: track NMI usage stats Don Zickus
2011-09-13 20:58 ` [V4][PATCH 6/6] x86, nmi: print out NMI stats in /proc/interrupts Don Zickus
2011-09-15 14:47 ` Don Zickus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E70AA82.5050409@redhat.com \
--to=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=dzickus@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robert.richter@amd.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox