| To: | Kanoj Sarcar <kanoj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Tlb shutdown bit |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 7 Apr 2000 14:28:59 -0700 |
| Cc: | Srinivasa Prasad Thirumalachar <sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx, sprasad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, peltier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mahdi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <200004071911.MAA10515@google.engr.sgi.com>; from kanoj@google.engr.sgi.com on Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:11:46PM -0700 |
| References: | <200004071654.JAA25867@sprasad.engr.sgi.com> <200004071911.MAA10515@google.engr.sgi.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-origin@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 12:11:46PM -0700, Kanoj Sarcar wrote: > For now, I am clearing the TS bit on entry into the kernel, and things > aren't too crazy ... except I keep on wondering what is making the > TS get set, and whether it has any connection to me not being able > to talk to processors on other nodes (via prom routines). At what time are you trying to launch the other processors? The experience I made over the last few years is that most firware is rather fragile, so my own code for launching the CPUs launches them in the very early startup phase and leaves them waiting with interrupts disabled in a spinlock. Later on the kernel actually launches the processors by unlocking these spinlocks. This seem to have mostly solved the problems that I was observing with my own code. Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Tlb shutdown bit, Kanoj Sarcar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Tlb shutdown bit, Kanoj Sarcar |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Tlb shutdown bit, Kanoj Sarcar |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Tlb shutdown bit, Kanoj Sarcar |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |