Re: [V4][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multipleevents and unknown NMIs

[Don Zickus]

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:58:27PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> 
> V3:
>   - redesigned the algorithm to utilize Avi's idea of detecting a back-to-back
>     NMI with %rip.

Hi Robert,

I realized I added an optimization for executing the nmi handlers to help
minimize the impact on the virt folks and realize it might break your IBS
stuff.

> -static int notrace __kprobes nmi_handle(unsigned int type, struct pt_regs *regs)
> +static int notrace __kprobes nmi_handle(unsigned int type, struct pt_regs *regs, bool b2b)
>  {
>  	struct nmi_desc *desc = nmi_to_desc(type);
>  	struct nmiaction *next_a, *a, **ap = &desc->head;
> @@ -87,6 +87,16 @@ static int notrace __kprobes nmi_handle(unsigned int type, struct pt_regs *regs)
>  
>  		handled += a->handler(type, regs);
>  
> +		/*
> + 		 * Optimization: only loop once if this is not a 
> + 		 * back-to-back NMI.  The idea is nothing is dropped
> + 		 * on the first NMI, only on the second of a back-to-back
> + 		 * NMI.  No need to waste cycles going through all the
> + 		 * handlers.
> + 		 */
> +		if (!b2b && handled)
> +			break;
> +
>  		a = next_a;
>  	}
>  	rcu_read_unlock();

The optimization is to run through the handlers until one of them claims
the NMI but only for the first NMI.  Whereas on the second half of a
back-to-back NMI, run through all the handlers regardless of how many
claim they handled it.

Does your IBS stuff need to always run through two handlers?

Cheers,
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/