On Mon, 13 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:21:00AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 8 May 2013, Robin Holt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thomas,
> > > > >
> > > > > We are seeing failures booting medium sized machines which I think is
> > > > > a change in expectations that dyntick put on x86's start_secondary.
> > > > >
> > > > > During boot of cpus, we see an occassional panic in tick_do_broadcast
> > > > > at
> > > >
> > > > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1305.0/01818.html
> > > >
> > > > Will hit Linus tree soon.
> > >
> > > I think this is really due to a sequence in start_secondary. The cpu
> > > has been marked as online, but its evtdesc has not been initialized.
> > > I sent a followup to this with a hack/patch.
> >
> > No, the real issue is that I messed up the cpumask conversion in the
> > broadcast code, i.e. using alloc instead of zalloc, which allocated
> > nonzeroed memory for the cpumasks, so any random bit set will crash
> > the machine. Your patch is just papering over the issue.
>
> I believe I understand now. What would be the downside of moving
> the initialization to before marking the cpu online? It seems like a
> reasonable this to expect as well in spite of it not being the right
> fix to the other bug.
Yes, we can move it, but its not a required thing that the tick device
is setup befor onlining.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
