Re: [V2 PATCH 0/6] x86, NMI: give NMI handler a face-lift

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 14:17 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 06:47 -0600, Jason Wessel wrote:
> > More specifically
> > when another subsystem injects an NMI event the perf NMI code returns
> > NOTIFY_STOP. 
> 
> Not unconditionally, right? We only do so when the previous NMI was from
> the PMU and nobody claimed this one (NOTIFY_STOP from DIE_NMIUNKNOWN).
> 
> Or are you hitting the other one, where !handled but pmu_nmi.handled >
> 1 ?

I'm just thinking here, shouldn't we do that (!handle && pmu_nmi.handle
> 1) case from DIE_NMIUNKNOWN as well? and only ever return NOTIFY_STOP
when handled != 0?

That way all NMIs at least traverse the regular DIE_NMI chain once and
we only kill redundant NMIs
--
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/