Hi: The cpus are started sequentially: don't start the next until the current has finished its configuration.
But your idea is good Thanks El lunes 19 de junio de 2023, Luca Dariz escribió: > Il 17/06/23 23:12, Samuel Thibault ha scritto: > > Luca Dariz, le jeu. 15 juin 2023 23:49:30 +0200, a ecrit: > >> diff --git a/i386/i386/ktss.c b/i386/i386/ktss.c > >> index 1d880167..52f3722c 100644 > >> --- a/i386/i386/ktss.c > >> +++ b/i386/i386/ktss.c > >> @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ ktss_fill(struct task_tss *myktss, struct > >> real_descriptor *mygdt) > >> /* Initialize the master TSS. */ > >> #ifdef __x86_64__ > >> myktss->tss.rsp0 = (unsigned long)(exception_stack+1024); > >> + myktss->tss.ist1 = (unsigned long)(exception_stack+1024); > > > > Shouldn't we use a different stack, to avoid overwriting information > > from the first fault? > > you're right, otherwise it will be less useful in case a double fault > happens before scheduling starts (which then overwrites rsp0 with the > pcb stack on every context switch). > > Thinking about the smp case, are the cpu started in parallel or > sequentially? There might also be a need to set a cpu-specific first > rsp0, if there is the possibility to have early interrupts concurrently. > > > Luca > > > -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo Sailfish
