Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757441AbYHUNOT (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:14:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752857AbYHUNOG (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:14:06 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]:34784 "EHLO py-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752888AbYHUNOF (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:14:05 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=r7GK3URsiL+5uUjiCGhM0dRnwe1ppFcC1fC7LoakzvTNSo3FZQ5iBjFuj8/O9uMCIb RVfByYQn4W9CwSllchiHqYRtRero/272ONPbxCa8Fq8OE7k3wnSyyEYS3gblStlBowPL /i1m7vLtNO8hivTE9v56XAzqhTIZ4JdGiiPAY= Message-ID: <19f34abd0808210614g15330a02u7a0625f88dfe4798@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:14:03 +0200 From: "Vegard Nossum" To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Subject: Re: 2.6.27-rc3: 'APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)', but only on resume! Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Frans Pop" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andi Kleen" , "Ingo Molnar" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200808202106.41058.elendil@planet.nl> <200808202138.13302.rjw@sisk.pl> <200808202226.45655.elendil@planet.nl> <200808202356.33036.rjw@sisk.pl> <19f34abd0808210418w39341d05p43712356b352cdc9@mail.gmail.com> <19f34abd0808210520q60357776xbfcf288018e04161@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2219 Lines: 56 On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Vegard Nossum wrote: > >> Ah, right. Here is a dump of the LVT registers: >> >> [00000320] = 000100ef >> [00000330] = 00000200 >> [00000340] = 00010000 >> [00000350] = 00010700 >> [00000360] = 00000400 >> [00000370] = 000000fe >> >> Maybe I've misunderstood something (again), but should those vectors >> really be 0 for 330-360? (At least 330 + 360, which are not masked.) > > Masked entries should be fine long-term, although I have a vague > recollection at least some implementations do send a vector error when an > LVT register is written with a masked entry implying an invalid vector, > e.g. a value like 0x00010000. > > Overall the issue of the validity of the vector exists for interrupts > using the native APIC priority model only, that is ones using the Fixed > and LoPri delivery modes. All the others either ignore the vector > altogether, such as the ExtINTA delivery mode, or assign a special meaning > to it, such as the StartUp mode. > > In this case the thermal entry at 0x330 uses the SMI delivery mode and > the LINT1 entry at 0x360 uses the NMI mode, so the vector is ignored for > both. > > Thus this LVT is entirely valid and if you receive invalid vector > interrupts, then the reason must be elsewhere. Of course you cannot > exclude a possibility where at some intermediate stage the LVT of your > system has not been correctly initialised. Thank you for the excellent explanations! I've double-checked and everything you said makes perfect sense. The reason must be elsewhere. Vegard PS: My APICs have version 0x20, which according to the Intel manual is a reserved value. My book is from 2005, though. -- "The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation." -- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036 -- 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/