On 04.08.10 15:26:34, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:

quoted text
> yes, that is what I meant by nmi_sc register. I think we need to restucturize
> current default_do_nmi handler but how to be with perfs I don't know at moment
> if perf register gets overflowed (ie already has pedning nmi) but we handle
> it in early nmi cycle this would lead to strange results. Need to think.
> 
> > 
> > So you can decide to either get an unrecovered nmi panic triggered by
> > a perfctr or losing unknown nmis from other sources. Maybe this can be
> > fixed by implementing handlers for those sources.

I was playing around with it yesterday trying to fix this. My idea is
to skip an unkown nmi if the privious nmi was a *handled* perfctr
nmi. I will probably post an rfc patch early next week.

Another problem I encountered is that unknown nmis from the chipset
are not reenabled, thus when hitting the nmi button I only see one
unknown nmi message per boot, if I reenable it, I get an nmi
storm firing nmi_watchdog. Uhh....

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
unsubscribe notice
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/