Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] jump label v4 - x86: Introduce generic jump patchingwithout stop_machine

[Masami Hiramatsu]

Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> It is *not* necessary to wait for the breakpoint handlers to return, as
>> long as they will get to IRET eventually, since IRET is a jump and a
>> serializing instruction.
> 
> Ah, I see. So the added smp_mb() would not be needed then, as long as we
> know that the other CPUs either are currently running the IPI handler or
> have executed it. IOW: they will execute IRET very soon or they just
> executed it since the int3 have been written. I am a bit concerned about
> NMIs coming in this race window, but as they need to have started after
> we have put the breakpoint, that should be OK. (note: entry_*.S
> modifications are needed to support nesting breakpoint handlers in NMIs)

Hmm, if we support this to modify NMI code, it seems that we need to
support not only nesting breakpoint handling but also nesting NMIs,
because nesting NMI is unblocked when next IRET (of breakpoint) is
issued.

>From Intel's Software Developer’s Manual Vol.3A 5.7.1 Handling Multiple NMIs
said below.
---
While an NMI interrupt handler is executing, the processor disables additional calls to
the NMI handler until the next IRET instruction is executed. This blocking of subse-
quent NMIs prevents stacking up calls to the NMI handler. [...]
---

I assume that your below patch tried to solve this issue, right?
http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0804.1/0965.html

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/