[Beowulf] NMI (Non maskable interrupts)
Steven Truong
midair77 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 18 11:55:21 PDT 2008
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Mark Hahn <hahn at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> > From my understanding, NMI is not good since the processors really
> > have to handle these interrupts right away and these might degrade the
> > performance of the nodes.
>
> I think you're mistaken - NMI's of the sort you're talking about will
> result in a panic. these NMI's are probably just low-level kernel
> synchronization like where one CPU needs to cause others to immediately do
> something like changing the status of a page in their MMUs.
>
> for instance, I notice that more recent kernels classify interrupts
> more finely:
>
> [root at experiment ~]# cat /proc/interrupts
> CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 CPU3
> 0: 68 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge timer
> 1: 0 0 0 10 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 4: 0 0 0 2 IO-APIC-edge
> 8: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge rtc
> 9: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi acpi
> 12: 0 0 0 4 IO-APIC-edge i8042
> 14: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-edge ide0
> 17: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi sata_nv
> 18: 0 0 0 0 IO-APIC-fasteoi sata_nv
> 19: 123229 148 514 4698 IO-APIC-fasteoi sata_nv
> 362: 127524168 5281605 236961 121506 PCI-MSI-edge eth1
> 377: 519748 12731137 607115 42573852 PCI-MSI-edge eth0:MSI-X-2-RX
> 378: 109154 80191 302109913 6487104 PCI-MSI-edge eth0:MSI-X-1-TX
> NMI: 0 0 0 0 Non-maskable interrupts
> LOC: 300446104 300446082 300446060 300446038 Local timer interrupts
> RES: 2698262 44102 2234502 3677120 Rescheduling interrupts
> CAL: 4135 4379 4460 415 function call interrupts
> TLB: 14018 15088 4079 7251 TLB shootdowns
> TRM: 0 0 0 0 Thermal event interrupts
> THR: 0 0 0 0 Threshold APIC interrupts
> SPU: 0 0 0 0 Spurious interrupts
> ERR: 0
>
> I suspect that all the counts listed after RES are, in earlier kernels,
> lumped into NMI. obviously, rescheduling, function call and TLB shootdowns
> are perfectly normal, not indicating any error (though you might want to
> minimize them as well...)
>
> how about trying a new kernel? the above is 2.6.24.3. note that there are
> important security fixes that you might be missing if you're running certain
> ranges of old kernels...
>
Hi, Mark. Yes, I was wrong. I also found a very informative discussion of NMI.
http://x86vmm.blogspot.com/2005/10/linux-nmis-on-intel-64-bit-hardware.html
Thank you.
More information about the Beowulf
mailing list