On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 23:24:59 +1100
Balbir Singh wrote:
> > @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ masked_##_H##interrupt:
> > \
> > lis r10,0x7fff; \
> > ori r10,r10,0x; \
> > mtspr SPRN_DEC,r10;
> @@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ masked_##_H##interrupt:
> \
> lis r10,0x7fff; \
> ori r10,r10,0x; \
> mtspr SPRN_DEC,r10; \
> - b 2f;
On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 16:22:13 +1100
Balbir Singh wrote:
> On 10/12/16 02:52, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > Rather than use perf / PMU interrupts and the generic hardlockup
> > detector, this takes the decrementer interrupt as an "NMI" when
> > interrupts are soft disabled (XXX: will this do the right
On 10/12/16 02:52, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> Rather than use perf / PMU interrupts and the generic hardlockup
> detector, this takes the decrementer interrupt as an "NMI" when
> interrupts are soft disabled (XXX: will this do the right thing with a
> large decrementer?). This will work even if we
On Sat, 2016-12-10 at 01:52 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> This does not solve the hardlockup problem completely however,
> because
> interrupts can often become hard disabled when soft disabled for long
> periods. And they can be hard disabled for other reasons.
>
> To make up for the lack of a
Rather than use perf / PMU interrupts and the generic hardlockup
detector, this takes the decrementer interrupt as an "NMI" when
interrupts are soft disabled (XXX: will this do the right thing with a
large decrementer?). This will work even if we start soft-disabling PMU
interrupts.
This does not
