From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755082AbYGXOcK (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:32:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752188AbYGXOb5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:31:57 -0400 Received: from hu-out-0506.google.com ([72.14.214.225]:18939 "EHLO hu-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752177AbYGXOb4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:31:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=EIBSt4Nq8iI3mL1BsqZa5SHwsg8CIUO3YQWVMcZV3qH+i/18xOO7Lbwos+xtPWffSS ec4NBoNGWPTBbHpVZenC+Wkq4mENioUV8yQm30KbIhQqxrm6Dy+pioVJBMC6LGazZYwk d9eDULh4eIfXbpTXPS5+HpWDnJUFD4Nr847/A= Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:31:51 +0400 From: Cyrill Gorcunov To: Martin Wilck Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Wichert, Gerhard" , "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 (64): make calibrate_APIC_clock() SMI-safe Message-ID: <20080724143151.GA32422@lenovo> References: <48885DDC.9010003@fujitsu-siemens.com> <20080724111631.GA3432@lenovo> <48886E6D.1030005@fujitsu-siemens.com> <20080724120512.GA21804@lenovo> <488889B6.9070707@fujitsu-siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <488889B6.9070707@fujitsu-siemens.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [Martin Wilck - Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 03:55:02PM +0200] > Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > >> yes, it will issue some effects but it's better then stuck there. >> More over in 'case of SMI flood with current patch you don't get >> error message printed i think so you better add max iteration >> counter so user will see on console (or whatever) that he is got >> problems. >> - Cyrill - > > I disagree. If you have a system that generates SMIs in this extreme > frequency, you're better off stuck than running on such an unstable > system. The user _will_ see messages on the console if this happens. > Note that apparently there are few people who have trouble with this. We > did see problems, but never had more than 1 SMI disturbing the > calibration procedure. > > Anyway, here is another patch that defines max iteration counts. I > haven't added a "Signed-off:" line, because I prefer the original > version. > > Martin > yes, Martin, it'll be written on console (just forgot it's not interrupt driven). I've Cc'ed Maciej in previous message so we should better wait for his opinion I think. For me the almost ideal solution could be like - lets user to choose what he wants. I mean you even could add some boot param to specify behaviour on a such case like panic on SMI flood during calibration. yes - if we got smi flood we have serious troubles anyway but i don't think that being just stuck is good choise. And that is why I do like much more _this_ patch. Anyway - thanks! - Cyrill -