On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 04:42:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 07:55:25PM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 18:03:17, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > (17:59:38:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)$ cat
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/core_siblings
> > > >
> > 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000001
> > > > (17:59:47:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~)$ cat
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/topology/core_siblings
> > > >
> > 00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000000,00000002
> > > >
> > > > Neither of these CPUs are HT / dual-core, so shouldn't these be the
> > same ?
> > >
> > > Those are bitmaps. 1 => only bit 0 is set => CPU 0 is all alone.
> > >
> > > Did you really build a 256-CPU SMP kernel or is ACPI ignoring
> > CONFIG_NR_CPUS
> > > or something?
> >
> > Yes, it's =256.
> >
>
> Is that the only way in which to trigger the bug?
>
> If so, I'd be inclined to hold the fix back for 2.6.17.
not had chance to test Ashok's change yet (and probably won't until
at least Monday), but Andi's one-liner to limit x86-64's NR_CPUs
to 255 instead of 256 did the trick, and is a lot less invasive
for 2.6.16
Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
