From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Luck, Tony" Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:07:04 +0000 Subject: RE: [patch] 2.6.0 MCA TLB error recovery Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org > >It looks like salinfo_log_wakeup() is called right before > >ia64_log_print() ... so I'm not sure why the salinfo_decode > >daemon kept on snoozing. Keith: am I missing something obvious? > > From the top of salinfo_log_wakeup() > > * ... MCA and INIT events are > * not irq safe, do not call any routines that use spinlocks, > they may deadlock. Okay ... that was pretty danged obvious! Thanks for pointing it out so gently :-) > MCA and INIT records are noted but it is not safe to call up() from > those interrupts, so the daemon cannot be woken. This has not been a > problem in the past because MCA and INIT were not recoverable, the > records are picked up on the next boot. Once my patches are > in David's > tree, I will update salinfo to periodically check for any MCA or INIT > records and kick the daemon. There was no point before, I had no way > of testing this case. Sounds good. Salinfo-0.4 is beautiful by the way. Getting all the bits decoded from processor state parameter and ipsr/xpsr etc. is great. -Tony