Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Nov 2010 19:37:51 +0300 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible arch_trigger_all_cpu_backtrace_handler |
| |
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 05:06:55PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > 2010/11/1 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>: ... > > yup, this will do the trick for a while. In general I believe we might have > > kind of NMI exclusive chain so we wouldn't need the 'case:'s. > > Yeah. And seperating NMIs from the rest of the DIE notifiers would > probably improve > performance of things like PMI handling. >
It will make it more straight and clean as minimum which is already quite a benefit ;) There were patches floating from Don with notify priorities which are good start. Though I didn't manage to look into most of patches I've been CC'ed yet :(
> And I've always been confused with this "die" notifier semantic. We > are not dying when > we handle a counter overflow interrupt. > The same applies to DIE_INT3, DIE_TRAP, DIE_DEBUG, .... >
As the comment says on top of the enum they are "Grossly misnamed" ;) Though we could consider them not as "dying" but rather in terms of say on-die signals (or something like that).
> But until then, as having a seperate notifier is quite a refactoring, > we should enqueue Don's fix. > Don, can you resend it with usual SOB and changelog? > > Thanks. > Cyrill -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |