lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: NMI handling rework for x86
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 08:13:51AM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote:

> I don't think that's a good idea for two reasons:
>
> * If the oprofile code is only using the counter that the NMI
> watchdog is not using, it will silently cause the NMI watchdog to
> stop working. I know that's not the case now, but it could be in
> the future.

Uh, this is fine. We always call the NMI watchdog handler, so it will
see apic irqs get stuck, and work anyway.

> * The oprofile code will always reset the counter, so the NMI
> watchdog will never see the timeout, so it doesn't matter.

wrong. If we are using counters 0 and 1, and 1 overflows, oprofile
resets that, then 0 overflows, the NMI watchdog will see it and
incorrectly reset it. You HAVE to avoid the reset - you can test it if
you don't believe me.

> It's currently kind of an unnatural relationship. IMHO, it would be
> better to have a separate handler for the perf counters that they both
> use. But that's beyond the scope of this right now.

Yes.

> +/* This is for I/O APIC, until we can figure out how to tell if it's from the
> + I/O APIC. If the NMI was not handled before now, we handle it. */
> +static int dummy_watchdog_reset(int handled)
> +{
> + return !handled;
> +}

And if it was handled previously, you reset it to not handled ? Uh ?

regards
john
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:0.103 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site