[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B296930.9020704@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:11:44 -0700
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
CC: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: kexec reboot broken with ioatdma?
Roland Dreier wrote:
> > from a kexec point of view I believe that the preferred option is the
> > former - shutdown the device so it can be initialised using standard paths
> > in the second kernel.
>
> OK... however I'm not suggesting a separate kexec initialization path,
> simply adding a reset of the device in the standard initialization.
> This would be fairly normal for other types of device; for example, the
> BIOS may have left a NIC in an undefined state due to network boot. Of
> course BIOS is unlikely to use an IOAT DMA engine but the principle of
> limiting assumptions about platform state still stands I think.
I agree that is more robust if the init path copes with hardware
arriving in an unknown state. I'll look into adding a channel reset in
the init path (something that should probably have been there since the
beginning).
> From a quick look, it seems tricky to get a clean shutdown of IOAT stuff
> since there doesn't seem to be a clean ordering that makes sure the
> ioatdma stuff is shutdown after everything using it.
The engines may be in use by multiple subsytems (net, raid) so
coordinating shutdown ordering would indeed be a pain.
--
Dan
--
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