[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220630103958.tcear5oz3orsqwg6@bogus>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 11:39:58 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
atishp@...shpatra.org, atishp@...osinc.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
wangqing@...o.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
ionela.voinescu@....com, pierre.gondois@....com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, gshan@...hat.com,
Valentina.FernandezAlanis@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/19] arch_topology: Use the last level cache
information from the cacheinfo
On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 11:25:41PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> On 29/06/2022 21:32, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >
> > On 29/06/2022 20:54, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 07:39:43PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> >>> On 29/06/2022 19:42, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:18:25PM +0000, Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, no it doesn't. Not sure what I was thinking there.
> >>>>> Prob tested that on the the last commit that bisect tested
> >>>>> rather than the one it pointed out the problem was with.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Either way, boot is broken in -next.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you check if the below fixes the issue?
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately, no joy.
> >>> Applied to a HEAD of 3b23bb2573e6 ("arch_topology: Use the
> >>> last level cache information from the cacheinfo").
> >>
> >> That's bad. Does the system boot with
> >> Commit 2f7b757eb69d ("arch_topology: Add support to parse and detect cache
> >> attributes") ?
> >
> > It does.
>
I can't think of any reason for that to happen unless detect_cache_attributes
is failing from init_cpu_topology and we are ignoring that.
Are all RISC-V platforms failing on -next or is it just this platform ?
We may have to try with some logs in detect_cache_attributes,
last_level_cache_is_valid and last_level_cache_is_shared to check where it
is going wrong.
It must be crashing in smp_callin->update_siblings_masks->last_level_cache_is_shared
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists