Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > But we have to clarify and

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > But we have to clarify and

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > This might be better, we need to start at -1 to not miss the first one... > > > Still untested. > > > > > +static inline struct blk_mq_ctx *next_ctx(struct request_queue *q, int > > > *i) > > > +{ > > >

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > This might be better, we need to start at -1 to not miss the first one... > > > Still untested. > > > > > +static inline struct blk_mq_ctx *next_ctx(struct request_queue *q, int > > > *i) > > > +{ > > >

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 12:55 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Does the patch below fix the wreckage? Yup, all better. > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > index 643dbdccf4bc..c5ac71276076 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 12:55 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Does the patch below fix the wreckage? Yup, all better. > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > index 643dbdccf4bc..c5ac71276076 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:52:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: smpboot: CPU0: AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6274 > (family: 0x15, model: 0x1, stepping: 0x2) > Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: Performance Events: Fam15h core perfctr, > Broken BIOS detected, complain to

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:52:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: smpboot: CPU0: AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6274 > (family: 0x15, model: 0x1, stepping: 0x2) > Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: Performance Events: Fam15h core perfctr, > Broken BIOS detected, complain to

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 09:56:05AM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Can you please provide a full boot log and the output of 'cat > > /proc/cpuinfo' ? Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: smpboot: Max logical packages: 1 Mar

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 09:56:05AM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Can you please provide a full boot log and the output of 'cat > > /proc/cpuinfo' ? Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost kernel: smpboot: Max logical packages: 1 Mar 17 17:34:30 myhost

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one just muddles the

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one just muddles the

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 01:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: This might be better, we need to start at -1 to not miss the first one... Still untested. +static inline struct blk_mq_ctx *next_ctx(struct request_queue *q,

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 01:30 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 01:20 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: This might be better, we need to start at -1 to not miss the first one... Still untested. +static inline struct blk_mq_ctx *next_ctx(struct request_queue *q,

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are > > not > > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. > > So the general rule is that

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are > > not > > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. > > So the general rule is that

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

Hi, On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > B1;2802;0cOn Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> > > Could you please try? I'm not

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

Hi, On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > B1;2802;0cOn Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> > > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

B1;2802;0cOn Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > > > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

B1;2802;0cOn Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > > > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 14:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ah, did you actually disable HT in the BIOS, or just skip the HT > > > enumeration by saying nr_cpus=64

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 14:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Ah, did you actually disable HT in the BIOS, or just skip the HT > > > enumeration by saying nr_cpus=64

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Xiong Zhou wrote: > full log , bisect log and config are attached. Can you please provide a full boot log and the output of 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' ? Thanks, tglx

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, Xiong Zhou wrote: > full log , bisect log and config are attached. Can you please provide a full boot log and the output of 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' ? Thanks, tglx

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are > > not > > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. > > So the

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:51:20PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are > > not > > allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken. > > So the

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ah, did you actually disable HT in the BIOS, or just skip the HT > > enumeration by saying nr_cpus=64 (knowing that all the siblings are > > last)? > > It's disabled in

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:39:16PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Ah, did you actually disable HT in the BIOS, or just skip the HT > > enumeration by saying nr_cpus=64 (knowing that all the siblings are > > last)? > > It's disabled in

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not allowed at all or

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 09:42 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not allowed at all or

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed towards broken. It definitely does not explain it. The wreckage that topo stuff causes is that it disables a cpu, but that really is not a

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed towards broken. It definitely does not explain it. The wreckage that topo stuff causes is that it disables a cpu, but that really is not a

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > >

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 11:15 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 05:11:54AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > >

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also seems to now assume that

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings > > It also seems to now assume that

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings It also seems to now assume that if SMT is possible, it's enabled. Below is my 8 socket

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 10:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > Andreas; Borislav said to Cc you since you wrote all this. > The issue is that Linux assumes: > > > nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings It also seems to now assume that if SMT is possible, it's enabled. Below is my 8 socket

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed towards broken. > > It definitely does not explain it. The

Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 11:21:24AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Could you please try? I'm not sure how this would explain your loop > > device bug fail, but it certainly pointed towards broken. > > It definitely does not explain it. The