From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kexec reboot broken with ioatdma?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:11:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B296930.9020704@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aday6l27c7w.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > from a kexec point of view I believe that the preferred option is the
> > former - shutdown the device so it can be initialised using standard paths
> > in the second kernel.
>
> OK... however I'm not suggesting a separate kexec initialization path,
> simply adding a reset of the device in the standard initialization.
> This would be fairly normal for other types of device; for example, the
> BIOS may have left a NIC in an undefined state due to network boot. Of
> course BIOS is unlikely to use an IOAT DMA engine but the principle of
> limiting assumptions about platform state still stands I think.
I agree that is more robust if the init path copes with hardware
arriving in an unknown state. I'll look into adding a channel reset in
the init path (something that should probably have been there since the
beginning).
> From a quick look, it seems tricky to get a clean shutdown of IOAT stuff
> since there doesn't seem to be a clean ordering that makes sure the
> ioatdma stuff is shutdown after everything using it.
The engines may be in use by multiple subsytems (net, raid) so
coordinating shutdown ordering would indeed be a pain.
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: kexec reboot broken with ioatdma?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:11:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B296930.9020704@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aday6l27c7w.fsf@roland-alpha.cisco.com>
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > from a kexec point of view I believe that the preferred option is the
> > former - shutdown the device so it can be initialised using standard paths
> > in the second kernel.
>
> OK... however I'm not suggesting a separate kexec initialization path,
> simply adding a reset of the device in the standard initialization.
> This would be fairly normal for other types of device; for example, the
> BIOS may have left a NIC in an undefined state due to network boot. Of
> course BIOS is unlikely to use an IOAT DMA engine but the principle of
> limiting assumptions about platform state still stands I think.
I agree that is more robust if the init path copes with hardware
arriving in an unknown state. I'll look into adding a channel reset in
the init path (something that should probably have been there since the
beginning).
> From a quick look, it seems tricky to get a clean shutdown of IOAT stuff
> since there doesn't seem to be a clean ordering that makes sure the
> ioatdma stuff is shutdown after everything using it.
The engines may be in use by multiple subsytems (net, raid) so
coordinating shutdown ordering would indeed be a pain.
--
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-16 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-16 21:32 kexec reboot broken with ioatdma? Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 21:32 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 22:49 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 22:49 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 23:04 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 23:04 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 23:11 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2009-12-16 23:11 ` Dan Williams
2009-12-16 23:23 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 23:23 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-18 22:10 ` Dan Williams
2009-12-18 22:10 ` Dan Williams
2009-12-18 22:20 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-18 22:20 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-18 22:23 ` Dan Williams
2009-12-18 22:23 ` Dan Williams
2009-12-18 22:32 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-18 22:32 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-19 7:34 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-19 7:34 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 23:36 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 23:36 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 23:42 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 23:42 ` Roland Dreier
2009-12-16 23:45 ` Simon Horman
2009-12-16 23:45 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B296930.9020704@intel.com \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.