[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120514121725.GA10840@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 14:17:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Asit K Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Arjan Dan De Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Suresh B Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
"Srivatssa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Chen Gong <gong.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pm <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/12] x86/smpboot.c: Don't offline CPU0 if any irq
can not be migrated out of it and remove CPU0 check in smp_callin()
* Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com> wrote:
> Biggest code impact of that is the extra code to bring cpu0
> back online using NMI instead of INIT. We can't use INIT
> because if cpu0 gets one, it just resets the whole machine :-(
> But obviously we'd like to avoid special cases where there is
> a sane way to do so.
Could we just standardize on NMI bringup during regular bootup?
Thanks,
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists