On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 02:32:58PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-16 at 19:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > I suppose the fundamental question was: will receiving NMIs negate
> > NO_HZ_FULL's
> > functionality? That is, will the getting of NMIs make us drop out of
> > NO_HZ_FULL
> > and re-enable all sorts of things?
>
> It shouldn't. The nmi_enter() notifies RCU that it can no longer ignore
> this CPU, where as nmi_enter() tells it that it can ignore it, as it has
> re-entered user space.
>
> >
> > Because clearly RCU needs to exit from EQS, which might (or might not) mean
> > leaving NO_HZ_FULL.
>
> Yep, but the two are pretty much agnostic from each other.
>
> We only need to leave NO_HZ_FULL if RCU (or anything for that matter)
> required having a tick again. But as Paul said, getting an NMI in idle
> wont restart the tick, so there's no need to restart it here either.
>
> Now if an NMI were to do a call_rcu() then it would require a tick. But
> NMIs doing call_rcu() has much bigger issues to worry about ;-)
Someone invoking call_rcu() from an NMI handler will get what they deserve,
good and hard! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > I'm not entirely up-to-date on those details.
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
