From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AE841A0729 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:58:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAD93140DFC for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:58:34 +1000 (AEST) Message-ID: <1438077498.7562.130.camel@kernel.crashing.org> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc/kexec: Wait 1s for secondaries to enter OPAL From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: sam.mj@au1.ibm.com Cc: Stewart Smith , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 19:58:18 +1000 In-Reply-To: <55B71D89.7000308@au1.ibm.com> References: <1437544469-20028-1-git-send-email-sam.mj@au1.ibm.com> <55B71D89.7000308@au1.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2015-07-28 at 16:13 +1000, Samuel Mendoza-Jonas wrote: > "It sounds reasonable" was more or less the inspiration :) > While I was going over some of the code relating to the previous kexec > fix with Ben he pointed this out and suggested there wasn't > much of a reason to differentiate between a crashing/non-crashing > cpu as far as the timeout goes - if we're not 'crashing' we still > don't want to spin forever. > > I'll let Ben comment on whether 1s per cpu is enough. Well, if the scheduler doesn't give us the CPU at the point of kexec within a second, I think we are in pretty bad shape already, don't you think ? I don't mind bumping the timeout of you have worries... Cheers, Ben.