Thank you James for answering my question fully and correctly. Thanks to
Philipp for useful comments also.
Regards,
Tigran
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, James Bottomley wrote:
> prumpf@uzix.org said:
> > No. phys_to_virt(8192) != trampoline_base, at least in the general
> > case.
>
> > It really looks like the code in smpboot.c is out of date to me.
>
> Actually, it is, look at how the memory init sequence goes. There are only
> two other pages allocated before you get to smp_alloc_memory(). Here's the
> proof (putting a printk into setup_trampoline()).
>
> CPU0: Intel Pentium Pro stepping 07
> calibrating APIC timer ...
> ..... CPU clock speed is 198.9541 MHz.
> ..... system bus clock speed is 66.3177 MHz.
> trampoline base = (virt) c0002000, (phys) 8192
> Booting processor 1 eip 2000
> Calibrating delay loop... 397.31 BogoMIPS
> [...]
>
> I do agree the test lower down should be updated to use trampoline_base
> instead of phys_to_virt(8192).
>
> > This doesn't seem to happen in practice. If it does, we probably want
> > to panic() anyway - we now have a random CPU executing random code but
> > not behaving as expected.
>
> It doesn't happen in the normal course of events. For those of us who play
> with SMP HAL's, having this type of information can be invaluable. Also,
> getting the machine to boot so you can try to find out what happened to the
> errant CPU is useful. Usually it is just stuck somewhere like the message
> implies.
>
> James
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST