From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261936AbTELFcI (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 01:32:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261944AbTELFcI (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 01:32:08 -0400 Received: from franka.aracnet.com ([216.99.193.44]:62620 "EHLO franka.aracnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261936AbTELFcH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2003 01:32:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:30:27 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: "Eric W. Biederman" cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: bug on shutdown from 68-mm4 (machine_power_off returning causes problems) Message-ID: <19660000.1052710226@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: References: <8570000.1052623548@[10.10.2.4]><20030510224421.3347ea78.akpm@digeo.com><8880000.1052624174@[10.10.2.4]><20030510231120.580243be.akpm@digeo.com><12530000.1052664451@[10.10.2.4]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Yup, backing out kexec fixes it. > > > Ok. Thinking it through the differences is that I have machine_power_off > call stop_apics (which is roughly equivalent to the old smp_send_stop). Mmmm. Not sure NUMA-Q will like disconnect_bsp_APIC() much, but I guess that's my problem, not yours ;-) I can't do init 6 at the moment, so I'm walking on thin ice as is ... if I have to fix a couple of things up for NUMA-Q, that's no problem. > In the kexec patch that does 2 things. > 1) It shuts down the secondary cpus, and returns the bootstrap cpu to > virtual wire mode. > 2) It calls set_cpus_allowed to force the reboot to be on the primary > cpu. > > After returning from machine_power_off. We run into a problem > in flush_tlb_mm. Because we have a cpu disabled, that is still part > of the mm's vm mask. OK ... I presume that's just because you shut down the secondaries then. If so ... shouldn't it remove them from the relevant vm mask when it offlines them? (probably not your code, but still) > Does anyone know why machine_halt, and machine_power_off return? Nope, thats ... odd ;-) M.