From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262576AbVHDPKC (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:10:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261958AbVHDPHa (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:07:30 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36]:54934 "EHLO fed1rmmtao03.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262559AbVHDPGi (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Aug 2005 11:06:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 08:06:36 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Andi Kleen Cc: akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amitkale@linsyssoft.com Subject: Re: [patch 07/15] Basic x86_64 support Message-ID: <20050804150636.GD3337@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <1.2972005.trini@kernel.crashing.org> <20050803130531.GR10895@wotan.suse.de> <20050803133756.GA3337@smtp.west.cox.net> <20050804123900.GR8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804140445.GB3337@smtp.west.cox.net> <20050804140620.GW8266@wotan.suse.de> <20050804141437.GC3337@smtp.west.cox.net> <20050804142806.GX8266@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050804142806.GX8266@wotan.suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:28:06PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:14:37AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 04:06:20PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 07:04:45AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:39:00PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > That doesn't make much sense here. tasklet will only run when interrupts > > > > > > > are enabled, and that is much later. You could move it to there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where? Keep in mind it's really only x86_64 that isn't able to break > > > > > > sooner. > > > > > > > > > > The local_irq_enable() call in init/main.c:start_kernel() > > > > > > > > But as I say, only x86_64 needs this kind of delay. > > > > > > I don't think that's correct. Interrupts should be disabled on all > > > architectures until that. > > > > Right, but we can run sooner elsewhere. It's only x86_64 where we can't > > run when our commandline bits are parsed and need to wait. > > Why can't you run on x86-64 early? As I said earlier: " > If you want to run gdb earlier you need to do it without a tasklet. We really would like to try again once stacks are setup (IOW, once if ((&__get_cpu_var(init_tss))[0].ist[0])) is true). " IOW, when we parse the params on x86_64 this isn't true (or rather it wasn't true as of 2.6.9'ish, if this has changed I'd be glad to retest things). -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/