linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080620104452.GA7439@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:44:52 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for June 13: IO APIC breakage on HP nx6325


* Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@...ux-mips.org> wrote:

>  As expressed before, unfortunately a lot of diagnostic APIC messages 
> have been disabled in the 64-bit variation.  The result is I was 
> unable to get good results from my Internet search for bootstrap logs 
> from other systems using this southbridge.  Fortunately at least ACPI 
> messages are present and what I noticed is some of the systems do not 
> provide an IRQ0 override and still work correctly. [...]

okay, so when those files are unified, the diagnostics should remain and 
be prominent. (or even be put back into the 64-bit version right now.)

> > does PIT programming matter? One detail which might matter and which 
> > touches IRQ0 generation is the clockevent driver on nohz/highres. See 
> > arch/x86/kernel/i8253.c:init_pit_timer():
> > 
> >         case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN:
> >         case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED:
> >                 if (evt->mode == CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC ||
> >                     evt->mode == CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT) {
> >                         outb_pit(0x30, PIT_MODE);
> >                         outb_pit(0, PIT_CH0);
> >                         outb_pit(0, PIT_CH0);
> >                 }
> >                 pit_disable_clocksource();
> >                 break;
> > 
> >         case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT:
> >                 /* One shot setup */
> >                 pit_disable_clocksource();
> >                 outb_pit(0x38, PIT_MODE);
> >                 break;
> 
>  It does, though not necessarily in this case.  In principle all this 
> 8254-through-APIC timer validation code assumes the source retriggers 
> automatically and if an edge is lost because the APIC input targeted 
> is masked or not configured yet, another one will follow shortly by 
> itself.  It used to be the case when this code was implemented as we 
> never used any of the single-shot modes of the 8254 back then.
> 
>  Is it now possible at the time check_timer() is called the 8254 has 
> been put in one of the single-shot modes?  If so, then additional code 
> has to be put in place either to switch the timer into the periodic 
> mode for the duration of check_timer() or to rearm the timer if in a 
> single-shot mode each time timer_irq_works() is called.

that's a question for Thomas i guess, he wrote the PIT single-shot code.

	Ingo
--
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/