Linus Torvalds writes:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm really not clear on why it's a good idea to clear the LDR bits on
>> shutdown, and commit 558682b52919 ("x86/apic: Include the LDR when
>> clearing out APIC registers") just looks pointless. And now it has
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 02:13:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:44 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
That's what I just replied to Chris. Can you do it right away or should I queue
it up?
Done.
I'd like to bring back a discussion we had last year on ksummit-discuss:
https
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 1:44 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> That's what I just replied to Chris. Can you do it right away or should I
> queue it up?
Done.
Thanks,
Linus
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:00 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> So why wouldn't we just revert it?
That's what I just replied to Chris. Can you do it right away or should I queue
it up?
Thanks,
tglx
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2019-09-07 16:00:17)
> > Does this only happen with that CPU0 hotplug stuff enabled or on CPUs other
> > than CPU0 as well? That hotplug CPU0 stuff is a bandaid so I wouldn't be
> > surprised if we broke that somehow.
>
> If I igno
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> I'm really not clear on why it's a good idea to clear the LDR bits on
> shutdown, and commit 558682b52919 ("x86/apic: Include the LDR when
> clearing out APIC registers") just looks pointless. And now it has
> proven to break some machines.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:00 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Ok let me find a testbox to figure out whats wrong there.
Honestly, it looks like we should just revert that commit, since we
never used to clear the LDR bits before either, and the bug it "fixes"
doesn't really seem to be a bug (well, it'
Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2019-09-07 16:00:17)
> Does this only happen with that CPU0 hotplug stuff enabled or on CPUs other
> than CPU0 as well? That hotplug CPU0 stuff is a bandaid so I wouldn't be
> surprised if we broke that somehow.
If I ignore cpu0 in that test and so use
[ 133.847187] smpb
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2019-09-07 15:29:19)
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Linus Torvalds (2019-09-02 18:28:26)
> > > > Bandan Das:
> > > > x86/apic: Include the LDR when clearing out APIC registers
> > >
> > > Apologies
Quoting Thomas Gleixner (2019-09-07 15:29:19)
> On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Linus Torvalds (2019-09-02 18:28:26)
> > > Bandan Das:
> > > x86/apic: Include the LDR when clearing out APIC registers
> >
> > Apologies if this is known already, I'm way behind on email.
> >
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Linus Torvalds (2019-09-02 18:28:26)
> > Bandan Das:
> > x86/apic: Include the LDR when clearing out APIC registers
>
> Apologies if this is known already, I'm way behind on email.
>
> I've bisected
>
> [ 18.693846] smpboot: CPU 0 is now
Quoting Linus Torvalds (2019-09-02 18:28:26)
> Bandan Das:
> x86/apic: Include the LDR when clearing out APIC registers
Apologies if this is known already, I'm way behind on email.
I've bisected
[ 18.693846] smpboot: CPU 0 is now offline
[ 19.707737] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 0
12 matches
Mail list logo
