Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1520423
| From | "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more |
| Date | 2016-11-12 23:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sCOEN-8el-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <sBg2u-2e5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBhrz-3gP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBD8K-HA-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBOGW-8w1-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBVfj-4HF-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/10/2016 01:50 PM, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
>
>
> On 11/09/2016 10:57 PM, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote:
>> [ 0.002000] mvb: CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
>> [ 0.002000] mvb: CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
>> [ 0.002000] mvb: identify_cpu:1112: c: ffff880013b0a040,
>> c->logical_proc_id: 65535
>> [ 0.002000] mvb: __default_cpu_present_to_apicid:612: Returning
>> 65535! mps_cpu: 1, nr_cpu_ids: 2, cpu_present(mps_cpu): 1
>> [ 0.002000] smpboot: mvb: topology_update_package_map:270: cpu: 1,
>> pkg: 4095
>> [ 0.002000] smpboot: APIC(ffff) Converting physical 4095 to logical
>> package 0
>> [ 0.002000] smpboot: mvb: topology_update_package_map:305: cpu: 1,
>> cpu_data(cpu).logical_proc_id: 0
>
> This seems strange. 0xffff is BAD_APICID. Why didn't this fail here:
>
> for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> unsigned int apicid = apic->cpu_present_to_apicid(cpu);
>
> if (apicid == BAD_APICID ||
> !apic->apic_id_valid(apicid)) <<<<<<<<<<
> continue;
> if (!topology_update_package_map(apicid, cpu))
> continue;
>
> topology_update_package_map() should never have been called?
(Sorry for the delay!)
It appears that this is a different call path than the one in
smp_init_package_map function. I *think* the following call path is the
one shown in the dmesg, but I am not sure:
cpu_bringup_and_idle
cpu_bringup (arch/x86/xen/smp.c)
smp_store_cpu_info (this call path branch is included for context)
identify_secondary_cpu
identify_cpu
detect_ht
topology_update_package_map
Sorry about the potentially misleading dmesg excerpt I posted.
Vefa
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-02 13:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-02 23:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-03 18:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-04 13:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-04 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-04 21:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-04 22:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-07 17:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-07 18:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-07 21:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-08 15:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-08 15:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-08 16:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-08 17:30 +0100
[PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 16:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-09 17:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-09 17:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 19:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-09 19:20 +0100
[tip:x86/urgent] x86/cpu: Deal with broken firmware (VMWare/XEN) tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-11-09 21:30 +0100
Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/cpu: Deal with broken firmware (VMWare/XEN) Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com> - 2016-11-11 07:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> - 2016-11-10 05:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-10 12:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> - 2016-11-12 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-10 12:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 15:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-10 16:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> - 2016-11-12 23:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-13 19:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> - 2016-11-14 00:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-15 02:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-18 12:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-18 15:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 16:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 16:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 18:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 19:10 +0100
csiph-web