From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keith Owens Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:37:04 +0000 Subject: Re: Sending cpu 0 back to SAL slave loop Message-Id: <8352.1160293024@ocs3.ocs.com.au> List-Id: References: <20061006203909.GA6500@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20061006203909.GA6500@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox (on Fri, 6 Oct 2006 14:44:43 -0600) wrote: >On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 03:39:10PM -0500, Jack Steiner wrote: >> For kexec, it is ESSENTIAL that all cpus except for the one doing >> the kexec be returned to the SAL slave loop. If this is not done, our >> chipset will misdirect IO interrupts on the newly exec'ed kernel. > >Could you do an IPI call to have CPU 0 do the kexec and have the CPU >that sent the IPI fall into the SAL slave loop instead? An IPI call will not work for MCA or INIT. Both of those drive all cpus into a state which has disabled interrupts.