From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751803Ab1CUR4Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:56:25 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:49018 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751161Ab1CUR4X (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:56:23 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=itbG9uWx/qOc+pBlWm45cP46d7YgKRGo9MpCUjUtphD4AoqRnjfhrC/0WgzUQnnwC6 2QCLKl5HbulelHrP2lS++qO3OjAC4ZW+NodtayY9iJdu5DFCou1urtYMZRWc2lm0oX/a 41lx7OgjupphsM6h1dqHcdzk6yNMJlkV6GVr8= Message-ID: <4D879109.2040000@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:55:21 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jack Steiner CC: Ingo Molnar , Don Zickus , tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , Jason Wessel Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, UV: Fix NMI handler for UV platforms References: <20110321160135.GA31562@sgi.com> <20110321161425.GC23614@elte.hu> <4D877C4B.9090602@gmail.com> <4D878042.9080708@gmail.com> <4D878445.6090709@gmail.com> <20110321170832.GC12718@sgi.com> <4D87888D.4050400@gmail.com> <20110321173413.GA13916@sgi.com> <4D878F7A.7070506@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4D878F7A.7070506@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/21/2011 08:48 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: ... >>> Another option might be to add pre-nmi notifier chain, which of course >>> not much differ from platform ops but I guess platform ops stands mostly >>> for one-shot events while chain might be more flexible. Ie I mean something >>> like >>> >>> if (notify_pre_die(DIE_NMI, "nmi", regs, 0, 2, SIGINT) == NOTIFY_STOP) >>> return; >> >> You still need to process both chains in order to handle the case where both >> hw_perf & the SGI BMC raise NMIs at about the same time. >> >> --- jack > > yes, but I meant to simply call this chain before the regular notify_die. Anyway > it would look ugly as hell too. > And if I'm not missing something kgdb still might call IPI inside NMI handler which is look somehow strange to me... -- Cyrill