From: Robert R. <rob...@am...> - 2009-01-17 16:12:11
|
On 17.01.09 16:09:23, Tim Blechmann wrote: > > > however, trying to apply this patch to 2.6.28, the behavior is the same > > > as before (one NMI) ... so possibly, it is a combination of two bugs, > > > with similar symptoms ... > > > > Tim, could you revert 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea too? > > > > If this not helps, last chance is > > 59512900baab03c5629f2ff5efad1d5d4e682ece, but this seems to be save. > > i tried to revert both commits, however the behavior doesn't seem to > change. will try to apply the working patch to the child commits, maybe > i can find something interesting ... Hmm, strange. Actually 7c64ade53a6f977d73f16243865c42ceae999aea fixed a similiar bug, see here: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11908 Your patch with 2.6.28, does: grep NMI /proc/interrupts returns exactly 1 NMI per core or some more? > > best, tim > > btw, i am not very familiar with kernel programming, but is it safe to > have `static u64 *reset_value' uninitialized, or should it be > initialized to NULL? External and static variables should be gaaranteed to be initialized to zero. Only local variables are uninitialized. -Robert -- Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Operating System Research Center email: rob...@am... |