Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote: > In fact, it's my fault. > I should re-base my patches after the commit c291b0151585 in time. Definitely not your fault. As a maintainer I should have been more careful and check whether Linus tree or x86/urgent has any modifications to that area before

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote: > In fact, it's my fault. > I should re-base my patches after the commit c291b0151585 in time. Definitely not your fault. As a maintainer I should have been more careful and check whether Linus tree or x86/urgent has any modifications to that area before

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Mike Galbraith wrote: >Whew, no mythical creature infestation. Thanks, next encounter with >such an artifact should provide markedly less entertainment. Oh, no worries. Next time it'll be something else. There's no dull day with this this kernel thing ;-) -- Sent

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Mike Galbraith wrote: >Whew, no mythical creature infestation. Thanks, next encounter with >such an artifact should provide markedly less entertainment. Oh, no worries. Next time it'll be something else. There's no dull day with this this kernel thing ;-) -- Sent from a small device:

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 15:35 -0400, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Can you please provide your .config and the dmesg of a bad and a good run? > > Don't bother. I found it. > > It's a merge artifact. So git bisect pointing at the merge commit is > entirely

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 15:35 -0400, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Can you please provide your .config and the dmesg of a bad and a good run? > > Don't bother. I found it. > > It's a merge artifact. So git bisect pointing at the merge commit is > entirely

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Hi tglx, I'm sorry for the late reply. Awfully sorry that I could not do anything help. In fact, it's my fault. I should re-base my patches after the commit c291b0151585 in time. I learned a lot from it. Thank a lot, and once again my apologies. Thanks, Dou At 09/27/2016 01:36 AM, Thomas

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Hi tglx, I'm sorry for the late reply. Awfully sorry that I could not do anything help. In fact, it's my fault. I should re-base my patches after the commit c291b0151585 in time. I learned a lot from it. Thank a lot, and once again my apologies. Thanks, Dou At 09/27/2016 01:36 AM, Thomas

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Here is a patch against tip/master which fixes the issue at least for > Boris. I'm going to merge that other commit into x86/apic and fix it up so > we don't end up with that mess again. tip/x86/apic and tip/master are updated now. Thanks,

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Here is a patch against tip/master which fixes the issue at least for > Boris. I'm going to merge that other commit into x86/apic and fix it up so > we don't end up with that mess again. tip/x86/apic and tip/master are updated now. Thanks,

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Can you please provide your .config and the dmesg of a bad and a good run? Don't bother. I found it. It's a merge artifact. So git bisect pointing at the merge commit is entirely correct. mainline moves num_processors++; to a different

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Can you please provide your .config and the dmesg of a bad and a good run? Don't bother. I found it. It's a merge artifact. So git bisect pointing at the merge commit is entirely correct. mainline moves num_processors++; to a different

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Mike, On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you > > boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. > > Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. > >

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Mike, On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you > > boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. > > Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. > >

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

CC'ed: Dou Liyang On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you > boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. > Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. What's the number of possible cpus in your

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

CC'ed: Dou Liyang On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you > boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. > Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. What's the number of possible cpus in your

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 15:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm > > > currently > > > bisecting the

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 15:40 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm > > > currently > > > bisecting the

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 03:40:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > <--- v4.8-rc7-496-g20eefd15d70: bad > > 20eefd15d70f Merge branch 'x86/apic' > > <--- v4.8-rc7-475-gb468c89ee756: OK > > b468c89ee756 Merge branch 'timers/core' Ok, it points to the merge commit here too: git bisect start #

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 03:40:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > <--- v4.8-rc7-496-g20eefd15d70: bad > > 20eefd15d70f Merge branch 'x86/apic' > > <--- v4.8-rc7-475-gb468c89ee756: OK > > b468c89ee756 Merge branch 'timers/core' Ok, it points to the merge commit here too: git bisect start #

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm currently > > bisecting the result against HEAD.. which will likely be about as > > useful as the last

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:39:53PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm currently > > bisecting the result against HEAD.. which will likely be about as > > useful as the last

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm currently > bisecting the result against HEAD.. which will likely be about as > useful as the last five bisections, but ya never know. (ok git, finger > somebody already

Re: [x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

On Mon, 2016-09-26 at 14:29 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > Checkout timers/core, and merge nodeid, and all is well. I'm currently > bisecting the result against HEAD.. which will likely be about as > useful as the last five bisections, but ya never know. (ok git, finger > somebody already

[x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Hi Ingo, I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. Bisection repeatedly goes as below, pointing to the nodeid merge, despite both timers/core and x86/apic

[x86-tip] strange nr_cpus= boot regression

Hi Ingo, I've encountered a strange regression in tip, symptom is that if you boot with nr_cpus=nr_you_have, what actually boots is nr_you_have/2. Do not pass nr_cpus=, and all is well. Bisection repeatedly goes as below, pointing to the nodeid merge, despite both timers/core and x86/apic