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
>>
>
> 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
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
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
> -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
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
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
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
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
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
> -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
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
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
>>
>> 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
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
15 matches
Mail list logo