Re: [V6][PATCH 4/6] x86, nmi: add in logic to handle multipleevents and unknown NMIs

[Don Zickus]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 12:07:16PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >Right.  Avi, Jeremy what was your objection that needed this optimization
> >in the first place?
> >
> 
> First, iterating over all NMI sources is going to be slow, and a lot
> more so in a guest.  This reduces the performance of perf.

I understand and agree.  The only positive I can offer is most machines
will most likely only have two NMI handlers registered: perf and
arch_backtrace.  So any slowness should be minimal.  We might even be able
to code up arch_backtrace to register its NMI handler when it is called to 
minimize the the number of NMI sources even more.

Cheers,
Don

> 
> Second, I wanted to use NMIs as a way of waking up a vcpu sleeping
> with interrupts disabled (in the context of Jeremy's paravirt
> spinlock patches).  Looks like we'll have to use paravirtualization
> for that.


> 
> -- 
> error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/