Re: [PATCH 08/13] xen/pvticketlock: disable interrupts while blocking

[Don Zickus]

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
--
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/