From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Francois Wellenreiter Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 06:43:01 +0000 Subject: Re: Abnormal behaviour towards "INIT" interrupt management Message-Id: <406A6875.7030500@Ext.Bull.Net> List-Id: References: <40691B80.9070309@Ext.Bull.Net> In-Reply-To: <40691B80.9070309@Ext.Bull.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org >>>What I've noticed using traces (and further an ITP tool) is that for >>>each processor the "ia64_monarch_init_handler" is ever called. :-( >> >>Are you saying that more than one processor calls >>ia64_monarch_init_handler()? If so, I think something >>is broken. > > > Or are you saying that NO processor gets to ia64_monarch_init_handler? All the processors call the "ia64_monarch_init_handler", the result is that the same trace appears many times (1 per CPU in fact) and a kernel oops occurs (I think it is due to a concurrent access to the same stack without any lock mechanism). > Just a sanity check ... when you set the ITP breakpoint to catch > the entry ... you did set it at the *physical* address of this function? Yes, using Hardware breakpoints. When managing INIT interrupt, SAL calls the physical address of my function.