From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Don Zickus <dzickus@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] xen/pvticketlock: disable interrupts
	while blocking
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 13:21:17 -0400
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
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E67A551.4000502@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>, KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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