From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264294AbTH1TaQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:30:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264313AbTH1TaQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:30:16 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:32708 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264294AbTH1TaM (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:30:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:31:23 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Andrew Morton Cc: James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] make voyager work again after the cpumask_t changes Message-ID: <20030828193123.GI4306@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , Andrew Morton , James Bottomley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1062097375.1952.41.camel@mulgrave> <20030828121016.2c0e2716.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030828121016.2c0e2716.akpm@osdl.org> Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org James Bottomley wrote: >> Most is just simple fixes; however, the needless change from atomic to >> non-atomic operations in smp_invalidate_interrupt() caused me a lot of >> pain to track down since it introduced some very subtle bugs. On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 12:10:16PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Yes, the generic code was like that too. It was causing lockups. Sorry, I > did not realise that voyager had a private invalidatation implementation. > Officially smp_invalidate_needed should be a cpumask_t and > smp_invalidate_interrupt() should be using cpu_isset() rather than > open-coded bitops. For all those 64-way voyagers out there ;) > (Actually it is legitimate: you may want to run a NR_CPUS=48 kernel on a > 2-way voyager just for testing purposes). I'll drop your patch in as-is, > and maybe Bill can take a look at cpumaskifying it sometime? I'm not convinced it's worth it; AIUI there are architectural limits to Voyager that prevent it from ever supporting > 32x in hardware, though it could be worth doing so in tandem with an across-the-board all- subarch extension of generic i386 support. -- wli