From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Hellstrom Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 14:19:52 +0000 Subject: Re: SPARC32 SMP IRQ15 question Message-Id: <4D21E80D.8040009@gaisler.com> List-Id: References: <4D0A2102.8030100@gaisler.com> In-Reply-To: <4D0A2102.8030100@gaisler.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org crn@pop3.netunix.com wrote: >>From: Kjetil Oftedal >>Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 13:34:56 +0100 >> >> >> >>>On 22 December 2010 23:28, David Miller wrote: >>> >>> >>>>From: Daniel Hellstrom >>>>Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:23:27 +0100 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I will try to create a patch for the atomic layer for SMP LEON systems >>>>>since they have the CASA instruction. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>But see my other posting, you still have to fix the irq15 problem. >>>> >>>>Merely switching to CASA doesn't mean you don't still have a problem >>>>because spin_lock_irqsave() and other similar pieces of code expect >>>>they will not be interrupted by smp_call_function() calls. >>>> >>>> >>>Was SPARC32 SMP in 2.4 also implemented using IRQ15/NMI ? >>> >>> >>Yes, it's essentially always had this problem. >> >>It was less important back then because smp_call_function() was >>really not used much by generic code. Now it's used everywhere. >> >> > >Maybe this could be why I could never get a sun4d SS1000E with 8 >processors to stay up for more than a few minutes without locking solid. >OTOH it could be irrelevant. > > It might very well be due to this problem. The boot up process and much other stuff work every time, however after some minutes of more CPU-load the system tend to hang. That is the behaviour which we have seen so far. Daniel > >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > >