Re: [patch 3/5] git-ia64 versus genirq

From: Horms <horms_at_verge.net.au>
Date: 2006-08-18 10:39:26
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:58:45 -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Horms <horms@verge.net.au> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:28:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:07:22 +0900
>>> horms@tabatha.lab.ultramonkey.org wrote:
>>> 
>>>> > commit 1f4c5c1fe2a6a74271989ec079af11e2bb8e2826
>>>> > tree a0da63a3dcc3ffd71653ecc039db416dbcaa86d4
>>>> > parent beada884dd437b509c26b39f1a0b0c6b31e6f340
>>>> > author Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> 1151573360 -0700
>>>> > committer Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> 1151607053 -0700
>>>> > 
>>>> > [IA64] git-ia64 versus genirq
>>>> > 
>>>> > Fix the git-ia64 tree after genirq merge.
>>>> > 
>>>> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
>>>> > Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Patch from test branch of Tony Luck's ia64 tree.
>>>> This is needed for ia64 kexec in Linus's tree.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think you're telling us that Tony needs to get this into mainline, yes?
>>
>> This would be ia64 kexec.
>>
>> I was thinking more along the lines that it would be nice if Zou Nan hai
>> sent incremental patches against Tony's tree. But he probably gets more
>> testing by sending out a apply and forget patch against 2.6.18-rc4. And
>> certainly merging ia64 kexec into Linus' tree would be a nice resolution
>> to this problem.
>>
>> At OLS Tony spoke about what state he would like to see kexec in before
>> it is merged into Linus' tree. Basically reports that it works on
>> at least a cople of different vendor's gear. That is proving harder
>> than one might have hoped. But the code is marked as experimental,
>> and if pushing it into Linus's tree both makes patch management a bit
>> easier, and potentially gives the code better testing, then it seems
>> like a good idea to me.
> 
> Guys I have a serious problem with this patchset.
> 
> It does way to much crap on the crash shutdown path, and none of the
> improvements we discussed making at OLS have even been touched.  Even
> from Zou Nan hai patchset there was a comment we should use the
> startup IPI but he didn't because the firmware implements improperly.
> 
> We had a presentation at OLS about how on x86 where we have a fairly minimal
> crash_shutdown how that implementation suffers from being nowhere near
> paranoid enough.  With this patchset I can almost guarantee your kexec
> on panic path is worthless in the face of real failures.
> 
> Tony's point on testing is also important, but this is the kind of
> code path you can only get right by being paranoid and reviewing the
> code carefully.
> 
> There is way to much of this patchset where it appears you are
> trying to solve things on the shutdown path and not in the init
> routines.  We had several discussions at OLS where it was the
> indisputed conclusion that there were no short cuts.  Fixing things
> right in the init routines was the way to go.
> 
> Things like the genirq have no place even affecting the kexec on
> panic path.
> 
> Do I need to get specific and describe the faults of each individual
> function or have I said enough?

Hi Eric,

as you are the kexec maintainer I think that code reviews from you are
highly appropriate.

As to the issue at hand. I believe that the most troublesome code is the
PCI shutdown routines, which I myself am not particularly keen on either.
I even posted a patch to remove them at one stage. However, according to
a recent discussion that I had with Nan hai about this issue, it seems
that they are a work around for some HP boxes. 

Clearly you are right that it would be a lot nicer to resolve the
problem in the init path. Perhaps an interim solution would be to wrap
these bits of code in #ifdef CONFIG_IA64_HP_ZX1 (Nan hai, would that
cover the hardware that you are seeing the problem on?) and/or break it
out into a separate add-on, very-wip patch.

Lastly, Nan hai, do you have remote or local access to HP hardware that
exhibits this problem? I don't, but perhaps someone can provide some
access to help explore better options to this problem.

-- 
Horms
  H: http://www.vergenet.net/~horms/
  W: http://www.valinux.co.jp/en/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Fri Aug 18 10:40:46 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2006-08-18 10:41:01 EST