Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932159AbWIJNn4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:43:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932166AbWIJNn4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:43:56 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:11473 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932159AbWIJNnz (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Sep 2006 09:43:55 -0400 From: Andi Kleen To: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: 2.6.18-rc6-mm1: GPF loop on early boot Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 15:55:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Laurent Riffard , Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , Kernel development list , Jeremy Fitzhardinge References: <20060908011317.6cb0495a.akpm@osdl.org> <200609101334.34867.ak@suse.de> <20060910132614.GA29423@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20060910132614.GA29423@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200609101555.52211.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1776 Lines: 44 On Sunday 10 September 2006 15:26, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Basically, non-atomic setup of basic architecture state _is_ going to > > > be a nightmare, lockdep or not, especially if it uses common > > > infrastructure like 'current', spin_lock() or even something as simple > > > as C functions. (for example the stack-footprint tracer was once hit by > > > this weakness of the x86_64 code) > > > > I disagree with that. The nightmare is putting stuff that needs so > > much infrastructure into the most basic operations. > > ugh, "having a working current" is "so much infrastructure" ?? Together with stacktrace the infrastructure needed is quite considerable. > > the i686 PDA patches introduce tons of early_current() uses. While i > like the new PDA code, its bootstrap (like x86_64's PDA bootstrap) is > too fragile in my opinion, and it will regularly hit instrumenting > patches. Or the instrumentation patches just always need to check some global variable. Maybe system_state could be extended or something. > > Perhaps the early setup code (if we really want to do it all in C) Sorry but moving it into assembler would be just crazy. > should be moved into 32-bit early boot userspace code (like > compressed/misc.c) and it will thus not depend on any kernel > infrastructure. Ok I guess it would make sense to add a i386_start_kernel to i386 and initialize the boot PDA there. I would also move early_cpu_init into there because that also avoids quite some mess later. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/