On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:05:36 +1000
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 07:04 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > > We don't have critical wired to anything, I don't expect watchdog
> > to
> > > cause another fault.. so just wondering.
> >
> > We being who? I
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 07:04 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > We don't have critical wired to anything, I don't expect watchdog
> to
> > cause another fault.. so just wondering.
>
> We being who? I'm slightly confused here.
I think Kumar doesn't know that we are talking about the BG kernel whic
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:28:20AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>Did you actually see this happen?
> >
> >Yes.
>
> When?
During some bluegene debug.
> We don't have critical wired to anything, I don't expect watchdog to
> cause another fault.. so just wondering.
We being who? I'm slightly con
On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 01:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Did you actually see this happen?
> >>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>
> >> When?
> >>
> >> We don't have critical wired to anything, I don't expect watchdog to
> >> cause another fault.. so just wondering.
> >
> > On debug (trace) interrupts on blue gen
Did you actually see this happen?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> When?
>>
>> We don't have critical wired to anything, I don't expect watchdog to
>> cause another fault.. so just wondering.
>
> On debug (trace) interrupts on blue gene.
Do you know why the debug code caused a fault?
- k
_
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 12:28:20AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:20:45 -0500
> > Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:20 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>
> >>> The 440 family of processors d
On Aug 8, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:20:45 -0500
> Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:20 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>> The 440 family of processors don't have a tlbie instruction. So, we
>>> implement TLB invalidates by explicit
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 09:01:29AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
> > Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 17:11 -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
> > Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patc
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 05:11:09PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
> > Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Th
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
> Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch fixes the problem in both arch/ppc and arch/powerpc by
> > > inhibiting
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 16:29 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
> Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch fixes the problem in both arch/ppc and arch/powerpc by
> > > inhibiting
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:43:25 + (UTC)
Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> >
> > This patch fixes the problem in both arch/ppc and arch/powerpc by
> > inhibiting interrupts (even critical and debug interrupts) across the
> > rel
On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
>
> This patch fixes the problem in both arch/ppc and arch/powerpc by
> inhibiting interrupts (even critical and debug interrupts) across the
> relevant instructions.
How could a critical or debug interrupt modify the contents of MMUCR?
--
On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:20:45 -0500
Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:20 PM, David Gibson wrote:
>
> > The 440 family of processors don't have a tlbie instruction. So, we
> > implement TLB invalidates by explicitly searching the TLB with tlbsx.,
> > then clobbering t
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; Todd Inglett;
> Volkmar Uhlig
> Subject: Re: Fix small race in 44x tlbie fu
On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:20 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> The 440 family of processors don't have a tlbie instruction. So, we
> implement TLB invalidates by explicitly searching the TLB with tlbsx.,
> then clobbering the relevant entry, if any. Unfortunately the PID for
> the search needs to be stored
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:20:50 +1000
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 440 family of processors don't have a tlbie instruction. So, we
> implement TLB invalidates by explicitly searching the TLB with tlbsx.,
> then clobbering the relevant entry, if any. Unfortunately the PID for
> the s
18 matches
Mail list logo
