On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:34:13 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:04:57 +0200 > > Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > * Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:19:54 +0200 > > > > Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > currently if AP wake up is failed, master CPU marks AP as not > > > > > > present > > > > > > in do_boot_cpu() by calling set_cpu_present(cpu, false). > > > > > > That leads to following list corruption on the next physical CPU > > > > > > hotplug: > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't this fix precede the main change to the smp bootup logic? > > > > > > > > > > Can this bug trigger with current upstream kernels? > > > > That's not impossible, tests showed that with current kernel there will > > > > be other problems due wild AP running around. > > > > > > > > I'll reorder patch anyway. > > > > > > So, could you please first make sure that with only the fixes applied > > > there's no problems left? > > > > Sure, I'll retest reordered series. > > Please don't jus test a reodered series, but a 'fixes only' series, > which does not include patch #1. > Yep, that's ^^^ what I've meant to do, I'm sorry for not being clear enough. I'll check that bugs, that patches fix, are fixed and they don't break something else except of issues #1 fixes of cause. > We will apply that patch too, to improve the bootup of virtualized > environments, but we first want to know whether the 'baseline' is OK > and fixed 100%. > > Thanks, > > Ingo -- Regards, Igor -- 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/
