[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49EBC150.2020407@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:26:56 +0900
From: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu,
tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [1/28] x86: Fix panic with interrupts off (needed for
MCE)
Andi Kleen wrote:
> I put the reboot vector into the highest priority bucket
> of the APIC vectors and moved the 64bit UV_BAU message
> down instead into the next lower priority.
I had forgotten to point this...
> @@ -88,12 +88,14 @@
> #define THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR 0xfa
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> -/* 0xf8 - 0xf9 : free */
> +/* 0xf9 : free */
> #else
> # define THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR 0xf9
> -# define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xf8
> #endif
>
> +#define REBOOT_VECTOR 0xf8
> +
> +
> /* f0-f7 used for spreading out TLB flushes: */
> #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_END 0xf7
> #define INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR_START 0xf0
> @@ -116,6 +118,8 @@
> */
> #define GENERIC_INTERRUPT_VECTOR 0xed
>
> +#define UV_BAU_MESSAGE 0xec
> +
> /*
> * First APIC vector available to drivers: (vectors 0x30-0xee) we
> * start at 0x31(0x41) to spread out vectors evenly between priority
Does this change (=pulling down the priority of UV_BAU_VECTOR) not impact
users of the UV_BAU_MESSAGE?
I can see why REBOOT_VECTOR need to be highest priority.
Maybe you could pull down THERMAL_APIC_VECTOR/THRESHOLD_APIC_VECTOR
instead. Why you choose UV_BAU_MESSAGE?
Thanks,
H.Seto
--
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