[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1435566329.2900.1.camel@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 10:25:29 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Subject: Re: [all better] Re: regression: massive trouble with fpu rework
On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 08:40 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> *
> Ok, so could you please move the fpu__init_system() further up and see which
> position is that starts breaking with the BIOS option set?
>
> here's the current, broken layout of the code:
>
> get_cpu_cap(c);
> [0] fpu__init_system(c);
>
> if (this_cpu->c_early_init)
> this_cpu->c_early_init(c);
>
> [1]
> c->cpu_index = 0;
> [2]
> filter_cpuid_features(c, false);
>
> [3]
> if (this_cpu->c_bsp_init)
> this_cpu->c_bsp_init(c);
>
> [4]
> setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS);
> [5]
> }
>
> and we know it from your testing that moving [0] to [5] fixes the crash.
>
> The question is, can we move it to [4], [3], [2] or even [1] instead, without
> breaking the system?
>
> I still don't see where the breakage comes from, but this would help us narrow it
> down.
[0] is the only spot that breaks box.
-Mike
--
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