On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Monday 01 October 2007 20:54:21 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 26 September 2007 20:03:12 David Bahi wrote: > > > > Thanks to tglx and ghaskins for all the help in tracking down a very > > > > early nmi_watchdog crash on certain x86_64 machines. > > > > > > The patch is totally bogus. irq 0 doesn't say anything about whether > > > the current CPU still works or not. You always need some local > > > interrupt. This basically disables the NMI watchdog for the non boot CPUs. > > > > > > It's even wrong on i386 -- i wonder how that broken patch > > > made it in there. I'll remove it there. > > > > Right, it's wrong for the broadcast case, but simply removing it will > > trigger false positives on the CPU which runs the broadcast timer. I > > fix this proper. > > I already did this here by checking for cpu != 0. But it also needs either tracking > or forbidding migrations of irq 0. I can take care of the patch. I was thinking about the same fix. On i386 we already have the irq migration / balancing of irq 0 disabled. That's why we setup IRQ0 with IRQ_NOBALANCING. tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
