On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 04:04:45PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > 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.
I tested with your patch and it does fix my problem as well. Thank your, Robin -- 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/