Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Maxim Uvarov
2010/11/22 Mika Westerberg : > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:08:30AM +0100, Per Fransson wrote: >> When kexec is used to start a crash kernel the other cores >> are notified. These non-crashing cores will save their state >> in the crash notes and then do nothing. >> >> Signed-off-by: Per Fransson >>

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Per Fransson
> > I wonder whether it is good idea to enable interrupts here? What > if we came here from an interrupt handler with interrupts already > disabled? > > I guess you did this because smp_call_function() needs to have > interrupts enabled, right? > Yup, that's why I did it. > As we still need to ma

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:53:00AM +0100, Per Fransson wrote: > > > > I wonder whether it is good idea to enable interrupts here? What > > if we came here from an interrupt handler with interrupts already > > disabled? > > > > I guess you did this because smp_call_function() needs to have > > inter

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:47:40AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > However, we do need smp_send_stop() to wait for a limited time for the > other CPUs to respond to the request. ARM: smp: make smp_send_stop() wait for secondary CPUs to stop Wait up to one second for secondary CPUs to res

RE: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Santosh Shilimkar
> -Original Message- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:li...@arm.linux.org.uk] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 4:58 PM > To: Per Fransson; Shilimkar, Santosh > Cc: Mika Westerberg; kexec@lists.infradead.org; linux-arm- > ker...@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add call to

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:37:09PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > ARM: smp: make smp_send_stop() wait for secondary CPUs to stop > > > > Wait up to one second for secondary CPUs to respond to a request to > > stop. This avoids the sender CPU continuing and possibly destroying > > state before

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Per Fransson
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:47:40AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> However, we do need smp_send_stop() to wait for a limited time for the >> other CPUs to respond to the request. > > ARM: smp: make smp_send_stop() wait f

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:31:24PM +0100, Per Fransson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:47:40AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> However, we do need smp_send_stop() to wait for a limited time for the > >> other C

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Per Fransson
On the other hand, do we really need to enable the interrupts before performing an ipi? The important thing must be for them to be enabled on the receiving/callee cores. It's not as if we want the crashing core to be interruptable, is it? I tried it and it seems to work fine. /Per On Mon, Nov 22

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Catalin Marinas
On 22 November 2010 17:03, Per Fransson wrote: > On the other hand, do we really need to enable the interrupts before > performing an ipi? > The important thing must be for them to be enabled on the > receiving/callee cores. It's not > as if we want the crashing core to be interruptable, is it? T

RE: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Santosh Shilimkar
> -Original Message- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:li...@arm.linux.org.uk] > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 7:51 PM > To: Santosh Shilimkar > Cc: Per Fransson; Mika Westerberg; kexec@lists.infradead.org; linux-arm- > ker...@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add call to

Re: [Stable-review] [08/45] mm, x86: Saving vmcore with non-lazy freeing of vmas

2010-11-22 Thread Greg KH
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:16:12AM +, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 13:42 -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > 2.6.32-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us > > know. > > > > -- > > > > From: Cliff Wickman > > > > commit 3ee48b6af49cf534ca2f48

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Maxim Uvarov
2010/11/22 Catalin Marinas : > On 22 November 2010 17:03, Per Fransson wrote: >> On the other hand, do we really need to enable the interrupts before >> performing an ipi? >> The important thing must be for them to be enabled on the >> receiving/callee cores. It's not >> as if we want the crashing

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Per Fransson
>> >> That's for the situation when the other core tries to send an IPI at >> the same time. Unlikely but both cores may deadlock. >> > > Am I right that deadlock can occur only if the same IPI was sent? And > there should > be no situation when CRASH_DUMP IPI was sent from different processors at

Re: [PATCH] Add call to non-crashing cores through IPI

2010-11-22 Thread Per Fransson
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Per Fransson wrote: >>> >>> That's for the situation when the other core tries to send an IPI at >>> the same time. Unlikely but both cores may deadlock. >>> >> >> Am I right that deadlock can occur only if the same IPI was sent? And >> there should >> be no situa