Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:08:06 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@il.ibm.com>
Cc: Chandru <chandru@in.ibm.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jdmason@kudzu.us
Subject: Re: [RFC] [Patch] calgary iommu: Use the first kernel's tce tables
	in kdump
Message-ID: <20080312180806.GB13549@redhat.com>
References: <1191962414.24134.68.camel@chandru> <20071009210623.GK4335@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <20071010053057.GA24434@in.ibm.com> <20071014054110.GB4399@rhun.haifa.ibm.com> <20071015062919.GA4598@in.ibm.com> <476F4064.8010601@in.ibm.com> <47D5359D.5000909@in.ibm.com> <20080311132921.GA10828@redhat.com> <47D76561.8050805@in.ibm.com> <20080312095820.GG10790@tyrion.haifa.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080312095820.GG10790@tyrion.haifa.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1643
Lines: 45

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:58:20AM +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:38:49AM +0530, Chandru wrote:
> 
> > The system booted! , :) with the following change. Muli acceptable??
> >
> > static void calgary_watchdog(unsigned long data)
> > {
> > ...
> > ...
> > /* Disable bus that caused the error and ignore if it's kdump kernel */
> > + if ( !is_kdump_kernel()) {
> > target = calgary_reg(bbar, phb_offset(tbl->it_busno) |
> > PHB_CONFIG_RW_OFFSET);
> > val32 = be32_to_cpu(readl(target));
> > val32 |= PHB_SLOT_DISABLE;
> > writel(cpu_to_be32(val32), target);
> > + }
> > readl(target); /* flush */
> 
> Yikes, not really :-)
> 
> You're basically saying "if we're in a kdump kernel, let's ignore all
> DMA errors and hope for the best". This is not really acceptable. What
> we could do is limit the scope of ignorance - only ignore errors from
> the point the kdump kernel starts booting until we have reinitialized
> the device and then go back to handling DMA errors correctly.
> 

Agree. Ignoring all the DMA errors in kdump kernel does not sound very
good.

On a side note, typically how much time does it take to for DMA operations
to finish. Can we wait for a random amount of time in second kernel,
hoping all the DMA operations are complete, and then setup a new table?

This can be atleast a stop gap solution till we come up with a good
solution?

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/