[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DC07B4F.4040509@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 15:01:51 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, werner <w.landgraf@...ru>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.39-rc5-git2 boot crashs
On 05/03/2011 02:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>>
>> the ELAN .config option influences the following details:
>>
>> - sets X86_L1_CACHE_SHIFT to 4 (16 bytes) instead of the typical 6 (64 bytes)
>> - sets X86_ALIGNMENT_16
>> - sets the -march=i486 compiler flag
>
> It also does this to the config diff:
>
> 306,307c328,332
> < CONFIG_X86_ALIGNMENT_16=y
> < CONFIG_X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY=4
> ---
> > CONFIG_X86_USE_PPRO_CHECKSUM=y
> > CONFIG_X86_TSC=y
> > CONFIG_X86_CMPXCHG64=y
> > CONFIG_X86_CMOV=y
> > CONFIG_X86_MINIMUM_CPU_FAMILY=5
>
> because of all the indirect changes it causes.
>
> Now, Werner is actually _running_ on an AMD Opteron (or whatever
> family 15 is), I think. And his kernel is SMP-enabled. And that whole
> thin looks really really iffy.
>
> How/why do we even allow that combination of SMP and (for example)
> arch/x86/lib/atomic64_386_32.S to be picked?
>
> I don't think he actually runs SMP, but the fact that we even allow
> that combination looks really odd/iffy. Am I missing something?
>
We would end up in those paths before alternatives are run, but
alternatives should be run before we start the second processor.
-hpa
--
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