On 121, 04 30, 2008 at 12:54:21PM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
quoted text
> Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, J.A. Magall??n wrote:
>>> I have a couple problems with latest git (-14):
>>>
>>> - It only recognises 2 processors out of 4 (dual Xeon HT)
>>> - It oopses on the swapper process just on boot...
>>>
>>> Difference in dmesg is below. If full correct dmesg or config is
>>> needed, please ask for them. The kernel was built copying old
>>> 2.6.25 config to .config && make oldconfig. I filled the missing
>>> gaps like PAT and others...
>>>
>>> -Brought up 4 CPUs
>>> +native_cpu_up: bad cpu 2
>>> +native_cpu_up: bad cpu 3
>>> +Brought up 2 CPUs
>>
>> Yes, I've been getting this for some days too: only 2 processors on
>> dual Xeon HT in 32-bit mode; whereas x86_64 finds all 4 just fine.
>> Ran lots of testing on 2.6.25-mm1 before I noticed it there.
>>
>> I bisected for a while, but it got confusing (arrived at a bisect
>> point which gave only 1 processor: smpboot code getting rearranged),
>> so I was forced (quel horreur!) to investigate properly.  I've just
>> now had success with the patch below, please give it a try:
>> but it'll need an Ack from Glauber before it can go in.
>>
>>> +WARNING: at include/linux/blkdev.h:427 blk_queue_init_tags+0x110/0x11f=
()
quoted text
>>
>> I presume this warning and backtrace is what you report as an oops:
>> I think you'll find Linus included a fix for this one overnight, and
>> it should have gone away in 2.6.25-git15 (but I didn't see it myself).
>>
>> Hugh
>>
>> [PATCH] x86_32: fix HT cpu booting
>>
>> Since recent smpboot 32/64-bit merge, my dual Xeon with HT has been
>> booting only 2 of its 4 cpus (when running an i386 kernel; but x86_64
>> is okay).  J.A. Magall??n reports the same.
>>
>> native_cpu_up: bad cpu 2
>> native_cpu_up: bad cpu 3
>>
>> The mach-default cpu_present_to_apicid() was just returning cpu number
>> (2, 3) instead of apicid (6, 7): looks like we now need the x86_64 code
>> even for the i386 case.
>>
>> Comparing with other versions of cpu_present_to_apicid(), it seems a
>> good idea to include an NR_CPUS test too, since cpu_present() doesn't
>> include that; but that wasn't a problem here, and may no problem at all.
>>
>> One point worth noting - is it a worry?  Prior to that smpboot merge,
>> my Xeon booted the two HT siblings on one physical first, then the
>> two siblings on the other physical after - when i386, but alternated
>> them when x86_64.  Since the merge, the x86_64 sequence is unchanged,
>> but the i386 sequence is now like x86_64.  I prefer this consistency,
>> and I prefer the new sequence: booting with maxcpus=3D2 then uses the
>> independent physicals without HT sharing; but surprises in store?
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
>>
>> --- 2.6.25-git/include/asm-x86/mach-default/mach_apic.h	2008-04-23 07:24=
:16.000000000 +0100
quoted text
>> +++ linux/include/asm-x86/mach-default/mach_apic.h	2008-04-30 14:55:14.0=
00000000 +0100
quoted text
>> @@ -109,13 +109,8 @@ static inline int cpu_to_logical_apicid(
>>   static inline int cpu_present_to_apicid(int mps_cpu)
>>  {
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
>> -	if (cpu_present(mps_cpu))
>> +	if (mps_cpu < NR_CPUS && cpu_present(mps_cpu))
>>  		return (int)per_cpu(x86_bios_cpu_apicid, mps_cpu);
>> -#else
>> -	if (mps_cpu < get_physical_broadcast())
>> -		return  mps_cpu;
>> -#endif
>>  	else
>>  		return BAD_APICID;
>>  }
>
> Hugh, thanks for tracing this. The patch looks sane to me
>
> However, since this problem was raised, I'm still concerned that visws ma=
y=20
quoted text
> have the same problem, since it uses the same logic that i386 mach_defaul=
t=20
quoted text
> used to. (and I did not touched, since x86_64 code went int o=20
> mach_default).
>
> Could anyone with access to such hardware give it a try ?

Unfortunately, no. Visws port is in non-bootable state currently, 2.6.25 ha=
ngs
in calibrate_delay_direct() and I still do not know why :(

--=20
Andrey Panin		| Linux and UNIX system administrator
pazke@donpac.ru		| PGP key: wwwkeys.pgp.net