Jack Steiner wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 02:00:15PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > > To further muddy the waters, it looks like the latest Error Handling Guide > has addressed the issue: > > >> Intel® Itanium® Processor Family Error Handling Guide April 2004 > >> > >> Document Number: 249278-003 > >> > >> 2.7.1 > >> > >> ... > >> The MCA error information is provided to the OS_MCA layer. The MCA > >> error record is logged to the NVM. To simplify SAL implementation, it > >> is strongly recommended that SAL process all MCAs by handing off to the > >> OS as soon as possible to prevent some OSes from experiencing time-outs > >> and potentially crashing the system. >>>> The SAL may maintain a variable > >> in > >> the SAL data area that indicates whether SAL, on one of the processors, > >> is already handling an MCA. If so, MCA processing on other processors will > >> wait within the SAL MCA handler until the current MCA is processed. This > >> situation may arise when local MCAs are experienced on multiple > >> processors. <<<<<<< > > > However, it says "may maintain a variable...". Should I interpret this as > allowing but not requiring serialization?
I vote for that interpritation. IMHO, Linux needs to continue to support SALs that single thread MCAs, but should also allow concurrent MCA handling for SALs that support it. -- Russ Anderson, OS RAS/Partitioning Project Lead SGI - Silicon Graphics Inc [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
