[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180611143801.GH12235@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:38:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Cline <jeremy@...ine.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
rui.zhang@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...mhuis.info,
Diego Viola <diego.viola@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Regression: x86/tsc: Fix mark_tsc_unstable()
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 04:17:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 01:59:15PM +0000, Jeremy Cline wrote:
> > A user has bisected the problem to the v4.16 commit 1ab4ca7c59d4
> > ("x86/tsc: Fix mark_tsc_unstable()"). According to the reporter,
> > explicitly setting "tsc=" on the kernel command line causes the boot to
> > always succeed. All the users have Thinkpad T500s or T400s (Core 2 Duos)
>
> Weird. So Core2 typically triggers mark_tsc_unstable() in either
> intel_idle or processor_idle. ISTR testing that when I did the patches.
>
> When I make that mark_tsc_unstable() in the idle drivers unconditional
> and boot my ivb with that, it doesn't want to fail. I've booted the
> machine 5 consequctive times without issue.
>
> Let me try and checkout -stable, maybe something's up with that.
Nope -stable seems to be working as well on the IVB (with modification).
I just dug up my T500 and that's actually still running the test kernel.
Let me try and build the -stable kernel for that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists