Re: Abnormal behaviour towards "INIT" interrupt management

From: Francois Wellenreiter <Francois.Wellenreiter_at_Ext.Bull.Net>
Date: 2004-03-31 16:37:01
>>Then I push on the "dump" button that generates an INIT interruption to 
>>all the processors. This signal is then caught by PAL, and SAL which 
>>calls (with a reason [register GR11] equal to 2) 
>>"ia64_monarch_init_handler" on the monarch processor and 
>>"ia64_slave_init_handler" on the slave ones (to this point, I hope to be 
>>right, isn't it ?).
> Yes.  If I understand correctly, you observe that one processor
> calls ia64_monarch_init_handler(), and all the others call
> ia64_slave_init_handler().  So far, that is correct behavior.

Hum, in fact, that's the behaviour I was expecting to observe... reading 
the kernel code.

>>What I've noticed using traces (and further an ITP tool) is that for 
>>each processor the "ia64_monarch_init_handler" is ever called. :-(
> Are you saying that more than one processor calls
> ia64_monarch_init_handler()?  If so, I think something
> is broken.  But I haven't seen that behavior.  Here is
> ia64_slave_init_handler():
> 	GLOBAL_ENTRY(ia64_slave_init_handler)
> 	1:      br.sptk 1b
> 	END(ia64_slave_init_handler)

Right, I was just surprised to see 4 times the trace "Entered OS INIT 
handler" appearing on my console screen. Then, I ran a JTAG debugger
to set breakpoints in the kernel code and noticed that all CPUs called
the same function, e.g. "ia64_monarch_init_handler" (without using
any Rendez-Vous mechanism ?!).

> So I'd be surprised to see the slave processors do anything
> interesting.
> I do know that we are missing some useful behavior in this area --
> namely, we don't extract the min-state area for the slave processors,
> so we don't get backtraces for the currently-running tasks on them.

On that precise point, I thougt that PAL was recording register states
in a processor dedicated area called "min-state area" for each processor
receiving INIT signal (and in the present case all the processors catch 
it). Can you confirm this ?

In fact, I want to be able pushing the "dump" button to get the 
information for all the running processors (and not just one) and then 
determine for example which one is "deadlocking".

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Wed Mar 31 01:36:05 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:25 EST