From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
Cc: Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>,
George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>,
dipankar@in.ibm.com, ganzinger@mvista.com,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: RCU question
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 13:15:46 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041212121546.GM16322@dualathlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <41BC1BF9.70701@colorfullife.com>
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:22:49AM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 09:59:00AM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It means that our NMI irq return path should check if it points to a hlt
> >>instruction and if yes, then increase the saved EIP by one before doing
> >>the iretd, right?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't think we'll ever post any event through nmi, so it doesn't
> >matter. We only care to be waken by real irqs, not nmi/smi. Idle loop is
> >fine to ignore the actions of the nmi handlers and to hang into the
> >"hlt".
> >
> >
> No, You misunderstood the problem:
>
> sti
> ** NMI handler
> ** normal interrupt arrives, is queued by the cpu
> ** irqd from NMI handler
> ** cpu notices the normal interrupt, handles it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ok. The above just wasn't obvious to me because iret of an nmi is doing
the same thing that sti does (and the nmi itself is like a cli).
Shouldn't iret wait 1 instruction too or is there a special case about
iret? The specs only tells sti waits 1 instruction, but they don't tell
anything about iret (nor that it waits nor that it doesn't wait). I
realized now the link posted here assumes iret isn't going to wait 1
instruction before processing pending irqs which is reasonable given the
specs don't tell anything about iret, but I didn't imagine there was a
difference between sti and iret (I mean only when iret is going to
change the interrupt enable flag from 0 to 1 just like sti does).
Overall this is a very minor issue (unless HZ is 0), it would only
introduce a 1/HZ latency to the irq that get posted while the nmi
handler is running, and the nmi handlers never runs in production.
Forcing idle=poll when the nmi watchdog is enabled is probably a
reasonable fix.
As for the SMI, I wonder how you plan to fix it. To me it sounds like a
minor mistake that iret isn't equivalent to sti when it toggles the irq
enable bitflag (infact I don't see a way to fix it for smi, though I
know very little about smi).
thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-12 12:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-09 23:59 George Anzinger
2004-12-10 4:31 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-12-10 19:42 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-10 20:40 ` Dipankar Sarma
2004-12-10 20:45 ` Lee Revell
2004-12-10 21:02 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-10 22:58 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-11 2:22 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-11 2:45 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-11 3:29 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-11 14:52 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-11 16:32 ` Manfred Spraul
2004-12-11 16:52 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-12 2:53 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-12 8:59 ` Manfred Spraul
2004-12-12 9:37 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-12-12 10:22 ` Manfred Spraul
2004-12-12 12:15 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2004-12-14 21:40 ` Lee Revell
2004-12-14 22:23 ` [patch, 2.6.10-rc3] safe_hlt() & NMIs Ingo Molnar
2004-12-14 22:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-14 23:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-12-15 8:52 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-15 15:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-12-15 16:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-16 0:37 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-16 1:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-12-16 14:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-16 15:08 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2004-12-16 15:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-16 15:42 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2004-12-16 15:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-12-16 2:10 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-16 13:26 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-14 23:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-12-14 23:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-12-15 5:04 ` Andi Kleen
2004-12-15 6:27 ` Avi Kivity
2004-12-15 8:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-12-12 16:51 ` RCU question George Anzinger
2004-12-12 22:40 ` Manfred Spraul
2004-12-13 5:22 ` George Anzinger
2004-12-12 16:26 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041212121546.GM16322@dualathlon.random \
--to=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=dipankar@in.ibm.com \
--cc=ganzinger@mvista.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manfred@colorfullife.com \
--cc=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=zwane@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®