Cc: <akpm@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, Andi Kleen <ak@...>, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...>, Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...>
I wouldn't mind if it was limited to the code within do_nmi(), but then
we would have to accept potential GPF if
A - the NMI or MCE code calls any external kernel code (printk,
notify_die, spin_lock/unlock, die_nmi, lapic_wd_event (perfctr code,
calls printk too for debugging)...
B - we try to patch this code at the wrong moment
I could live with that, but I would prefer to have a solid, non flaky
solution. My goal is to help the kernel quality _improve_ rather than
deteriorate. Therefore, if one decides to use the immediate values to
leave dormant spinlock instrumentation in the kernel, I wouldn't want it
to have undesirable side-effects (GPF) when the instrumentation is
being enabled, as rare as it could be.
If we choose to go this way, stop_machine would have to do a sync_core()
on every CPU before it reactivates interrupts for this to respect
Intel's errata. It's not just a matter of not executing the code while
it is modified; the issue here is that we must insure that we don't have
an incoherent trace cache. So, as is, stop_machine would not respect
the errata.
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
Computer Engineering Ph.D. Student, Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68
-