lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: UP APIC reenabling vs. cpu type detection o
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Petr Vandrovec wrote:

> So it came to my mind - why (on K7 we easy can, as counter has 48 bits)
> we do not reload NMI watchdog in each timer interrupt with 5sec timeout,
> and if we receive even one NMI, we are locked up? It should increase
> performance, as we'll do same number of MSR writes anyway (100/s), but
> we will not receive any NMI during normal operation, so we save time
> spent in processing this. Or do I miss something?

I guess it's the external watchdog heritage. The code is common for both
kinds of the watchdog at the moment. It might get separated, I suppose.

--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:17    [W:0.036 / U:1.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site