Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <sva...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > * Michael Neuling <mi...@neuling.org> [2017-03-18 16:28:02]: > >> Vaidy, >> >> Thanks for fixing this. >> >> > drv->cpumask defaults to cpu_possible_mask in __cpuidle_driver_init(). >> > This breaks cpuidle on powernv where sysfs files are not created for >> > cpus in cpu_possible_mask that cannot be hot-added. >> >> I think I prefer the longer description below than this. > > [PATCH] powerpc/powernv/cpuidle: Pass correct drv->cpumask for > > drv->cpumask defaults to cpu_possible_mask in __cpuidle_driver_init(). > This breaks cpuidle on powernv where sysfs files are not created for > cpus in cpu_possible_mask that cannot be hot-added.
I'm confused. > On powernv platform cpu_present could be less than cpu_possible > in cases where firmware detects the cpu, but it is not available > for OS. It's entirely normal for present < possible, on my laptop for example, so I don't see how that causes the bug. > Such cpus are not hotplugable at runtime on powernv and > hence we skip creating sysfs files for these cpus. Why are they not hotpluggable? Looking at topology_init() they should be hotpluggable as long as ppc_md.cpu_die is populated, which it is on PowerNV AFAICS. Is it really "creating sysfs files" that's important, or is that we don't call register_cpu() for those CPUs? > Trying cpuidle_register_device() on cpu without sysfs node will > cause crash like: > > cpu 0xf: Vector: 380 (Data SLB Access) at [c000000ff1503490] > pc: c00000000022c8bc: string+0x34/0x60 > lr: c00000000022ed78: vsnprintf+0x284/0x42c > sp: c000000ff1503710 > msr: 9000000000009033 > dar: 6000000060000000 > current = 0xc000000ff1480000 > paca = 0xc00000000fe82d00 softe: 0 irq_happened: 0x01 > pid = 1, comm = swapper/8 > Linux version 4.11.0-rc2 (sv@sagarika) (gcc version 4.9.4 (Buildroot > 2017.02-00004-gc28573e) ) #15 SMP Fri Mar 17 19:32:02 IST 2017 > enter ? for help > [link register ] c00000000022ed78 vsnprintf+0x284/0x42c > [c000000ff1503710] c00000000022ebb8 vsnprintf+0xc4/0x42c (unreliable) > [c000000ff1503800] c00000000022ef40 vscnprintf+0x20/0x44 > [c000000ff1503830] c0000000000ab61c vprintk_emit+0x94/0x2cc > [c000000ff15038a0] c0000000000acc9c vprintk_func+0x60/0x74 > [c000000ff15038c0] c000000000619694 printk+0x38/0x4c > [c000000ff15038e0] c000000000224950 kobject_get+0x40/0x60 > [c000000ff1503950] c00000000022507c kobject_add_internal+0x60/0x2c4 > [c000000ff15039e0] c000000000225350 kobject_init_and_add+0x70/0x78 > [c000000ff1503a60] c00000000053c288 cpuidle_add_sysfs+0x9c/0xe0 > [c000000ff1503ae0] c00000000053aeac cpuidle_register_device+0xd4/0x12c > [c000000ff1503b30] c00000000053b108 cpuidle_register+0x98/0xcc > [c000000ff1503bc0] c00000000085eaf0 powernv_processor_idle_init+0x140/0x1e0 > [c000000ff1503c60] c00000000000cd60 do_one_initcall+0xc0/0x15c > [c000000ff1503d20] c000000000833e84 kernel_init_freeable+0x1a0/0x25c > [c000000ff1503dc0] c00000000000d478 kernel_init+0x24/0x12c > [c000000ff1503e30] c00000000000b564 ret_from_kernel_thread+0x5c/0x78 I really don't understand how a CPU not being present leads to a crash in printf()? Something in that call chain should have checked that the CPU was registered before crashing in printf() - surely? cheers