On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Could follow be possible? We know there's cpu 0 and cpu 1,
offline cpu1 done
offline cpu0 false
consider this in cpu_down code,
int __ref cpu_down(unsigned int cpu)
{
snip
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
static void move_task_off_dead_cpu(int dead_cpu, struct task_struct *p)
{
int dest_cpu;
const struct cpumask *nodemask = cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(dead_cpu));
again:
/* Look for allowed, online CPU in same node. */
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 15:14 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
static void move_task_off_dead_cpu(int dead_cpu, struct task_struct *p)
{
int dest_cpu;
const struct cpumask *nodemask =
cpumask_of_node(cpu_to_node(dead_cpu));
again:
/*
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I added some debug statements within the above code.
This is a 2 cpu machine.
XMON dest_cpu = 1024 . dead_cpu = 1 . nr_cpu_ids = 2
XMON dest_cpu = 1024
XMON dest_cpu = 1024 . dead_cpu = 1
XMON dest_cpu = 1024 . dead_cpu = 1 . nr_cpu_ids = 2
XMON dest_cpu = 1024
XMON
Could you try the below?
---
init/main.c |7 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 4051d75..4be7de2 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -369,12 +369,6 @@ static void __init smp_init(void)
{
unsigned int cpu;
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Could you try the below?
No luck. Still the same issue. The mask values don't change.
Thanks
-Sachin
---
init/main.c |7 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index 4051d75..4be7de2 100644
---
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline
process.
thanks
-Sachin
--
-
Sachin Sant
IBM Linux Technology Center
India Systems and Technology Labs
Bangalore, India
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
cpu 0x0: Vector: 100 (System Reset) at [cc9333d0]
pc:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline
process.
Then how could this happen ? Looks like cpu 0 is offline
0:mon 4IRQ 17 affinity broken
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline
process.
Then how could this happen ? Looks like cpu 0 is
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I added some debug statements within the above code. This is a 2 cpu
machine.
XMON dest_cpu = 1024 . dead_cpu = 1 . nr_cpu_ids = 2
XMON dest_cpu = 1024 XMON dest_cpu = 1024 . dead_cpu = 1
XMON
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 11:08 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Could you try the below?
No luck. Still the same issue. The mask values don't change.
Bugger, that patch did solve a similar problem for a patch I'm working
on.
Can you maybe add a print of the cpu_active_mask()
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant sach...@in.ibm.com wrote:
Xiaotian Feng wrote:
Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off?
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:23 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
cpu 0x0: Vector: 100 (System Reset) at [cc9333d0]
pc: c03433d8:
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:23 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
cpu 0x0: Vector: 100 (System Reset) at [cc9333d0]
pc:
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 16:41 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:23 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
cpu
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 13:19 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
cpu 0x0: Vector: 100 (System Reset) at [cc9333d0]
pc: c03433d8: .find_next_bit+0x54/0xc4
lr: c0342f10: .cpumask_next_and+0x4c/0x94
sp: cc933650
msr: 80089032
current
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:23 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
Have you heard anything about that one yet or it's still to be
debugged ? It probably hit
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 16:23 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote:
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
Have you heard anything about that one yet or it's
While executing cpu_hotplug(from autotest) tests against latest
next on a power6 box, the machine locks up. A soft reset shows
the following trace
cpu 0x0: Vector: 100 (System Reset) at [cc9333d0]
pc: c03433d8: .find_next_bit+0x54/0xc4
lr: c0342f10:
21 matches
Mail list logo
