[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A0454A2.7060104@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 08:49:54 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] x86: use flush_tlb_others to implement flush_tlb_all
Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 13:25 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>
>>
>> Use the flush_tlb_others() call to implement flush_tlb_all().
>>
>
> This causes:
> BUG: spinlock bad magic on CPU#0, swapper/0
> lock: c05b7588, .magic: 00000000, .owner: <none>/-1, .owner_cpu: 0
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.30-rc3-x86_32p-xen0-tip-01797-g3db7847 #1054
> Call Trace:
> [<c023e656>] spin_bug+0x96/0xf0
> [<c023e90f>] _raw_spin_lock+0x6f/0x150
>
Ah, right. I had another change (somewhere around here) to explicitly
initialize the tlb flush code from the normal early init code, rather
than make it implicit via initcall. Otherwise we have an unknown point
at which we're allowed to start using global flushes, which is a bit flakey.
J
--
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