Date:	Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:16:23 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>
Cc:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	Ben Woodard <woodard@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	hbabu@...ibm.com, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: force x86_64 arches to boot kdump kernels on
	boot cpu

On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:53:15AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 09:39:44AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:10:23PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:11:43PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 04:39:51PM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:51:31AM -0500, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:42:50AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thats what I'm doing at the moment.  I'm working on a RHEL5 patch at the moment
> > > > > > (since thats whats on the production system thats failing), and will forward
> > > > > > port it once its working
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > And not to split hairs, but techically thats not our _only_ choice.  We could
> > > > > > force kdump boots on cpu0 as well ;)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Neil
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Vivek
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Sorry to have been quiet on this issue for a few days. Interesting news to
> > > > > report, though.  So I was working on a patch to do early apic enabling on
> > > > > x86_64, and had something working for the old 2.6.18 kernel that we were
> > > > > origionally testing on.  Unfortunately while it worked on 2.6.18 it failed
> > > > > miserably on 2.6.24-rc3-mm2, causing check_timer to consistently report that the
> > > > > timer interrupt wasn't getting received (even though we could successfully run
> > > > > calibrate_delay).  Vivek and I were digging into this, when I ran accross the
> > > > > description of the hypertransport configuration register in the opteron
> > > > > specification.  It contains a bit that, suprise, configures the ht bus to either
> > > > > unicast interrupts delivered accross the ht bus to a single cpu, or to broadcast
> > > > > it to all cpus.  Since it seemed more likely that the 8259 in the nvidia
> > > > > southbridge was transporting legacy mode interrupts over the ht bus than
> > > > > directly to cpu0 via an actual wire, I wrote the attached patch to add a quirk
> > > > > for nvidia chipsets, which scanned for hypertransport controllers, and ensured
> > > > > that that broadcast bit was set.  Test results indicate that this solves the
> > > > > problem, and kdump kernels boot just fine on the affected system.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Neil,
> > > > 
> > > > Should we disable this broadcasting feature once we are through? Otherwise
> > > > in normal systems it might mean extra traffic on hypertransport. There
> > > > is no need for every interrupt to be broadcasted in normal systems?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Vivek
> > > 
> > > No, I don't think thats necessecary.  Once the apics are enabled, interrupts
> > > shouldn't travel accross the hypertransport bus anyway, opting instead to use
> > > the dedicated apic bus (at least thats my understanding).
> > 
> > I think all interrupt message travel on hypertransport. Even after APICS
> > have been enabled.
> > 
> > Look at the following document.
> > 
> > http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24674.pdf
> > 
> > Have a look at figure 1, figure 2 and section 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.2.3
> > 
> > That's a different thing that once IOAPIC has formed the vectored message,
> > Hypertransport might not touch the destination field.
> >  
> Ok, that might be the case then.
> 
> > Having said that, I am wondering what will happen if a system continues
> > to operate the timer through IOAPIC in ExtInt mode. Will hypertransport
> > keep on broadcasting that interrupt to every cpu? And every cpu will 
> > process that interrupt.
> > 
> I don't think so.  IIRC once the other cpus are started they all disable the
> timer interrupt, except for one cpu, opting instead to get the timer tick via
> ipi, So while they all might see the interrupt packet on the ht bus, only one
> cpu will process it.
> 

Does LAPIC allow to disable a specific vector and not accept interrupts? I
don't think so. If a timer interrupt is broadcasted to every cpu I think
everybody will accept it (like broadcast IPI). That's why intelligence
is built into IOAPIC and direct interrupts to a cpu or group of cpu.

I am just trying to understand the functionality better. Can somebody help me
understand how do we make sure that same timer interrupt is not processed by
all cpus (assuming hypertransport is broadcasting it)?

> > Hence, I feel it is safe to restore the broadcast bit back to BIOS value once
> > we are through calibrate_delay().
> > 
> I disagree.  Looking at what Yinghai said, the default setting for the broadcast
> bit isn't actually to unicast the interrupt, its just to set the broadcast mask
> to 0xF, or to 0xFF.  Its use is actually to allow cpus with an extended 8 bit
> apic id see interrupts.  So its not so much to direct interrupts to cpu0, but
> rather to the first 16 cpus rather than to all 255 available cpus.  From what
> I've seen in my testing, systems that 'work' already have this bit set by bios,
> and my quirk patch above does nothing to them.  Disabling this bit after
> calibrate_dealy is going to introduce more uncertainty in systems that have been
> proven to work.

Again for my understanding, I got few questions.

- Why does nvidia choose not to broadcast the interrupts and still works
  fine? Does that mean nvidia chipse will not work the extended cpu apic
  ids?

- IOW, why do other chipsets choose to broadcast the interrupts and 
  nvidia chooses not to and still works well.

- Why do I need to broadcast the interrupts and not target specific cpus?

- If I am broadcasting interrupts, how do I make sure only one cpu
  picks it up.


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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists