From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] x86/nmi: wait for all CPUs in
	check_nmi_watchdog()
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:09:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5373791A.4070506@citrix.com>
References: <1400072299-2285-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<1400072299-2285-4-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com>
	<537392FE02000078000123AD@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <david.vrabel@citrix.com>) id 1WkZsk-0003hT-In
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 14:10:10 +0000
In-Reply-To: <537392FE02000078000123AD@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 14/05/14 14:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 14.05.14 at 14:58, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> The counting of a CPUs NMIs in check_nmi_watchdog() is only reliable
>> if all CPUs have been spinning for 5 or more ticks.  There may be
>> delays in waking other CPUs from deep power states that can mean that
>> when the counts are checked CPUs haven't run for long enough.
> 
> 5 ticks ought to be a couple of orders of a magnitude longer than
> the worst possible wakeup time. I.e. I don't buy this argument
> without actual numbers to support it.

This was a change Andrew asked for and the reasoning he used, but I
agree that it seems highly implausible.

I think this is a worthwhile cleanup anyway so you can apply with the
below commit message or drop it (your preference).

David

8<-------
x86/nmi: wait for all CPUs in check_nmi_watchdog()

The counting of a CPUs NMIs in check_nmi_watchdog() is only reliable
if all CPUs have been spinning for 5 or more ticks.  Whilst its highly
implausible that this won't happen in practise, explicitly wait so it's
clear that this is required.