Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:47:24 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: machdep.hlt_cpus not safe with ULE? Message-ID: <AANLkTimuRv5Bo%2BqY3J=mnTy6Ehqs0S813LeLLz05iLOW@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7048D14F1FD341F2AFD2B0CB13C95477@multiplay.co.uk> References: <8332E9240ECA403480B48D21FA3A8694@multiplay.co.uk> <4D6292DD.8010704@freebsd.org> <AANLkTinmSpwW4-TcJDZAB8p1_%2BPOUhA06PjJeYUN-w=V@mail.gmail.com> <7048D14F1FD341F2AFD2B0CB13C95477@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Steven Hartland
<killing@multiplay.co.uk> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garrett Cooper" <gcooper@FreeBSD.org>
>>
>> =A0 As a followup to this and based on discussions with other folks,
>> the fact that it's using hlt to halt CPUs without rescheduling tasks /
>> masking interrupts, etc is not good. So none of the *hlt* sysctls are
>> really doing the right thing on x86.
>
> Time to disable them until they are fixed properly then I would suggest?
Andriy's patch attached to the PR above does the right thing when
first bringing up the system, but it's still broken with the sysctl
case, so I would actually vote to disable the sysctls for now and
commit his patch separately as it's better than the existing code is
in that area.
Thanks!
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTimuRv5Bo%2BqY3J=mnTy6Ehqs0S813LeLLz05iLOW>