From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Peng Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: correct socket_cpumask allocation for AP Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 09:58:12 +0800 Message-ID: <20150709015812.GG3333@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com> References: <1436348218-29172-1-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> <559D35FD020000780008E354@mail.emea.novell.com> <1436368264.22672.219.camel@citrix.com> <559D602C020000780008E585@mail.emea.novell.com> <1436372256.22672.246.camel@citrix.com> <559D6CAC020000780008E667@mail.emea.novell.com> Reply-To: Chao Peng Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <559D6CAC020000780008E667@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, Dario Faggioli , keir@xen.org, Boris Ostrovsky , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:32:11PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 08.07.15 at 18:17, wrote: > > I think it has to do with the fact that I've got CPU #0 on socket #1, > > while Boris' (and perhaps Chao's too) test box have it on socket #0. > > Ah, yes, this is indeed a case I didn't consider when validating > Chao's analysis. I apologize, this is what I have made the wrong assumption on from the beginning. While looks the fix is simple, just change 'zalloc_cpumask_var(socket_cpumask)' to 'zalloc_cpumask_var(socket_cpumask + cpu_to_socket(0))' for booting cpu in smp_prepare_cpus(). Chao