Re: Perhaps a side effect regarding NMI returns

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Note, the reason that I've been looking at this code, is because I'm
> looking at implementing your idea to handle irets in NMIs, caused by
> faults, exceptions, and the reason I really care about: debugging.
>
> Your proposal is here:
>
>  https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/14/264

Ahh, good that you pointed to it, I'd completely forgotten about this one.

Yeah. Simplifying NMI and not mixing up the paranoid stuff sounds like
a good idea, and then if we do the nice NMI counting thing and avoid
the whole problem with NMI and iret, that would be a nice cleanup in
itself.

So if that patch I posted works for you (with some NMI-heavy workload
like non-PEBS tracing) I think it's the way to go.

Too late for 3.2 obviously, since I don't think anybody has actually
reported the "delayed NMI's" as a real problem - so even if it's a
bug, it's not a bug we should try to fix at this stage.

                      Linus
--
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/