[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24e69019-60d0-29e7-e31f-c6f00f9ed98a@brocade.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:47:49 -0400
From: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@...cade.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, <x86@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@...box.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory
On 11/02/2016 08:25 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> I am not sure if this a race with the new hotplug code or something that was
> always there. Both (M. Vefa Bicakc and Charles) say that the box boots
> sometimes fine (without the patch). smp_store_boot_cpu_info() should have run
> before the notofoert and thus should have set the info properly. However I got
> the following bootlog from Charles with this patch:
I don't this this is a race. Here is some debugging from the two CPU VM
(2 sockets, 1 core per socket). In identify_cpu() we have:
/* The boot/hotplug time assigment got cleared, restore it */
c->logical_proc_id = topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(c->phys_proc_id);
The values just after this:
[ 0.228306] identify_cpu: c ffff88023fd0a040 logical_proc_id 65535 c->phys_proc_id 2
So what's interesting here, is the phys_proc_id of 2 for CPU1:
int topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(unsigned int phys_pkg)
{
if (phys_pkg >= max_physical_pkg_id)
return -1;
return physical_to_logical_pkg[phys_pkg];
}
And we happen to know the max_physical_pkg_id is 2 in this case.
So apparently, topology_phys_to_logical_pkg() returns -1 and it gets
assigned to the logical_proc_id.
I don't know why the CPU's phys_proc_id is 2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists