Re: [PATCH][2.5] Remove BUG in cpu_up

From: Zwane Mwaikambo (zwane@holomorphy.com)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 08:17:54 EST


On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:

> Err, no. If __cpu_up(cpu) succeeded, that means the cpu should bloody
> well be online!

smp startup looks rather convoluted to me right now, but if i see it
correctly, __cpu_up should eventually be doing a wakeup_secondary_via_INIT
on vanilla i386 correct? In that case, the processor accepting the IPI
doesn't necessarily mean it will have managed to initialise (if at all) itself by
the time you do that cpu_online check, the wakeup_secondary_via_INIT will
simply tell you wether you succeeded in sending the IPI. There are i386
systems which take considerably long to do that AP initialisation
procedure. I still reckon the most you should do there is specify
PENDING with the cpu in question sending an ONLINE notification when it
finally does all init.

        Zwane

-- 
function.linuxpower.ca

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:29 EST