lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:08:08 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> To: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> Cc: Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Max Krasnyansky <maxk@...lcomm.com>, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: 2.6.27rc1 cannot boot more than 8CPUs * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote: > > > > * Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Linus Torvalds > >> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote: > >> >> One trivial thing to try would be to just bisect it. I assume 2.6.26 is > >> > Bisecting now. > >> > >> Thanks to all the great helpful suggestions from everyone, and this > >> turns out that I just need to enable the following switches, so I > >> didn't bisect further, and since it's first machine that I've tried > >> with more than 8 CPUs so I wasn't sure whether 2.6.16 has the same > >> problem, but if you wish, I could give 2.6.16 a try. > >> > >> > CONFIG_X86_GENERICARCH=y > >> > CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP=y > >> > >> Thank you all for the great linux kernel! > > > > i still consider a silent boot hang a bug we need to fix. > > > > bigsmp might be required to have all cpus available on your box, but the > > kernel is still supposed to transparently fall back to less CPUs (and > > print a warning) if it cannot do that. > > > in setup.c::setup_arch() after go over with madt or mptable > > #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_X86_PC) && defined(CONFIG_X86_32) > if (def_to_bigsmp) > printk(KERN_WARNING "More than 8 CPUs detected and " > "CONFIG_X86_PC cannot handle it.\nUse " > "CONFIG_X86_GENERICARCH or > CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP.\n"); ===> here need to change "or" to "and" > #endif > > or just panic here? because screen scroll to pass it, and user will > not notice that... a panic is better but still quite rude and doesnt give a user a system under which he can build an even greater kernel [after having discovered the warning in the syslog] ;-) best would be to use as many CPUs as we can support, and skip the rest and boot up fine. (and print the warning prominently - the user does not make maximum use of available physical resources) Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists