Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:14:03 +0200 | From | "Vegard Nossum" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.27-rc3: 'APIC error on CPU1: 00(40)', but only on resume! |
| |
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@linux-mips.org> 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
| |