[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: A question of perf NMI handler
    On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:50:02AM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
    > >
    > > Well, first I guess having Yinghai CC'ed is a bonus ;)
    > > The second thing is that I don't get why perf handler can't be _last_
    > > call in default_do_nmi, if there were any nmi with reason (serr or parity)
    > > I think they should be calling first which of course don't eliminate
    > > the former issue but somewhat make it weaken.
    > Because the reason registers are never set. If they were, then the code
    > wouldn't have to walk the notify_chain. :-)

    maybe we're talking about different things. i meant that if there is nmi
    with a reason (from 0x61) the handling of such nmi should be done before
    notify_die I think (if only I not miss something behind).

    > Unknown nmis are unknown nmis, nobody is claiming them. Even worse, there
    > are customers that want to register their nmi handler below the perf
    > handler to claim all the unknown nmis, so they can be logged on the system
    > before being rebooted.

    well, perhaps we might need some kind of perf_chain in notifier code and
    call for it after die_nmi chain, so the customers you mention may add own
    chain for being called last.

    > Cheers,
    > Don
    -- Cyrill

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-04 18:13    [W:0.020 / U:1.024 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site