[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <540443DA.7030502@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 18:00:58 +0800
From: "long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@...wei.com>
To: Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>, <arnd@...db.de>
CC: <linux@....linux.org.uk>, <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
<victor.kamensky@...aro.org>, <nico@...aro.org>,
<ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>, <cov@...eaurora.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug?
On 2014/9/1 13:49, Wang Long wrote:
>
> Hi,all
>
> In kernel 3.17-rc2, when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
> in .config file. the secondary core can not boot.
>
> when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = n in .config file,
> the secondary core can boot.
>
> But this does not happen in kernel 3.10 lts kernel, Whether the
> CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set yes or no ,the secondary core can boot.
>
> Does the meaning of CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP changed or this is a bug in kernel 3.17-rc2 ?
>
>
hi Arnd
In above two cases, i also set CONFIG_SMP = y. in addtion,
the CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP depends on CONFIG_SMP. when set
CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y, the value of CONFIG_SMP must be y.
> I write the following patch to test the return value of is_smp().
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> index 84db893d..fbeb67f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -925,6 +925,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps();
> psci_init();
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +
> + if (is_smp() == 1)
> + printk("is_smp() return true;\n");
> + else if (is_smp() == 0)
> + printk("is_smp() return false;\n");
> if (is_smp()) {
> if (!mdesc->smp_init || !mdesc->smp_init()) {
> if (psci_smp_available())
>
> kernel version: 3.17-rc2
>
> config: set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
> command: # qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -smp 2 -m 128M -kernel arch/arm/boot/zImage -nographic
> The output:
>
> ..........
> is_smp() return false;
> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> missing device node for CPU 0
> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> Setting up static identity map for 0x604643d8 - 0x60464430
> Brought up 1 CPUs
> SMP: Total of 1 processors activated.
> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> ...........
>
> config: set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and not set CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP
> command: # qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -smp 2 -m 128M -kernel arch/arm/boot/zImage -nographic
> The output:
>
> .....
> Memory policy: Data cache writealloc
> is_smp() return true;
> sched_clock: 32 bits at 24MHz, resolution 41ns, wraps every 178956969942ns
> ......
> ......
> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
> missing device node for CPU 0
> missing device node for CPU 1
> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
> Setting up static identity map for 0x60463ef8 - 0x60463f50
> CPU1: Booted secondary processor
> CPU1: thread -1, cpu 1, socket 0, mpidr 80000001
> Brought up 2 CPUs
> SMP: Total of 2 processors activated.
> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
> devtmpfs: initialized
> .......
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
--
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