linux-kernel - Re: [Bug #13116] Can't boot with nosmp

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 8 Jun 2009 09:29:23 -0700
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug #13116] Can't boot with nosmp

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Hemminger<shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
> On Sun,  7 Jun 2009 11:52:49 +0200 (CEST)
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
>> of recent regressions.
>>
>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
>> from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
>> (either way).
>>
>>
>> Bug-Entry     : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13116
>> Subject               : Can't boot with nosmp
>> Submitter     : Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
>> Date          : 2009-04-15 4:18 (54 days old)
>> References    : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123976917817920&w=4
>> Handled-By    : Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
>>
>>
>
> I suspect this bit of code in dmaengine is the culprit:
>
>        /* redistribute available channels */
>        n = 0;
>        for_each_dma_cap_mask(cap, dma_cap_mask_all)
>                for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>                        if (num_possible_cpus() > 1)
>                                chan = nth_chan(cap, n++);
>                        else
>                                chan = nth_chan(cap, -1);
>
> Why does num_possible_cpus() == 1 have to be a special case?

When there will only be one cpu the channel allocation policy changes from:
"isolate a channel per cpu"
...to:
"isolate a capability per channel".

For example, isolating per channel allows a memcpy to run concurrently
with an xor.
--
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/