* [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
@ 2019-07-21 20:06 Andy Smith
2019-07-22 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Smith @ 2019-07-21 20:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Hi,
My first time using smt=0 on hypervisor command line so not sure how
many versions and different pieces of hardware this happens with,
but I noticed this during the microcode update stage of boot:
(XEN) HVM: HAP page sizes: 4kB, 2MB, 1GB
(XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
(XEN) Removing cpu 1 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 2 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 3 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 3 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 4 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 5 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 5 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 6 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 7 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 7 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 8 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 9 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 9 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 10 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 11 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 11 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 12 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 13 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 13 from runqueue 0
(XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Adding cpu 14 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Adding cpu 15 to runqueue 0
(XEN) Removing cpu 15 from runqueue 0
(XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
(XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
It doesn't happen with smt=1 and it also doesn't happen when SMT is
disabled in the BIOS.
Boot does continue normally after this point.
Is this expected? 4.12.
Cheers,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-07-21 20:06 [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0 Andy Smith
@ 2019-07-22 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
2019-07-22 12:06 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2019-07-22 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Smith; +Cc: xen-devel
On 21.07.2019 22:06, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My first time using smt=0 on hypervisor command line so not sure how
> many versions and different pieces of hardware this happens with,
> but I noticed this during the microcode update stage of boot:
>
> (XEN) HVM: HAP page sizes: 4kB, 2MB, 1GB
> (XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> (XEN) Removing cpu 1 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 2 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 3 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 3 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 4 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 5 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 5 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 6 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 7 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 7 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 8 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 9 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 9 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 10 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 11 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 11 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 12 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 13 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 13 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Adding cpu 14 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Adding cpu 15 to runqueue 0
> (XEN) Removing cpu 15 from runqueue 0
> (XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
> (XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
>
> It doesn't happen with smt=1 and it also doesn't happen when SMT is
> disabled in the BIOS.
>
> Boot does continue normally after this point.
>
> Is this expected? 4.12.
"Expected" isn't the right word. I've noticed this too on one or two
occasions, and I can't (yet) explain what's going on there, the more
that so far (including your report) this is only ever for the first
CPU to get re-offlined. Something to be looked into as time permits.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-07-22 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2019-07-22 12:06 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-07-22 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
2019-08-02 2:15 ` Andy Smith
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2019-07-22 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Andy Smith; +Cc: xen-devel
On 22/07/2019 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.07.2019 22:06, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> My first time using smt=0 on hypervisor command line so not sure how
>> many versions and different pieces of hardware this happens with,
>> but I noticed this during the microcode update stage of boot:
>>
>> (XEN) HVM: HAP page sizes: 4kB, 2MB, 1GB
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 1 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 2 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 3 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 3 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 4 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 5 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 5 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 6 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 7 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 7 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 8 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 9 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 9 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 10 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 11 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 11 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 12 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 13 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 13 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 14 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Adding cpu 15 to runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Removing cpu 15 from runqueue 0
>> (XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
>> (XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
>>
>> It doesn't happen with smt=1 and it also doesn't happen when SMT is
>> disabled in the BIOS.
>>
>> Boot does continue normally after this point.
>>
>> Is this expected? 4.12.
> "Expected" isn't the right word. I've noticed this too on one or two
> occasions, and I can't (yet) explain what's going on there, the more
> that so far (including your report) this is only ever for the first
> CPU to get re-offlined. Something to be looked into as time permits.
Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away? I've never
encountered this on any smt=0 test, but I also don't use credit2 at all.
The sibling threads shouldn't be inserted into the scheduler in the
first place, and I thought we took deliberate steps to prevent that from
occurring.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-07-22 12:06 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2019-07-22 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
2019-07-22 12:55 ` Juergen Gross
2019-08-02 2:15 ` Andy Smith
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2019-07-22 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper; +Cc: Andy Smith, xen-devel
On 22.07.2019 14:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away? I've never
> encountered this on any smt=0 test, but I also don't use credit2 at all.
I'll try to remember trying this out the next time I see it. I can't
see a connection to the used scheduler though, when the message comes
out of __cpu_die(). There must be an excessive delay for the dying
CPU to finally call cpu_exit_clear(). I wonder if the CPU might e.g.
be scrubbing memory at that point. But that shouldn't happen this
early.
> The sibling threads shouldn't be inserted into the scheduler in the
> first place, and I thought we took deliberate steps to prevent that from
> occurring.
I don't think we did, but I agree this may be worthwhile to do if it
wouldn't result in adding ugly special cases somewhere.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-07-22 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2019-07-22 12:55 ` Juergen Gross
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Gross @ 2019-07-22 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Andrew Cooper; +Cc: Andy Smith, xen-devel
On 22.07.19 14:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.07.2019 14:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away? I've never
>> encountered this on any smt=0 test, but I also don't use credit2 at all.
>
> I'll try to remember trying this out the next time I see it. I can't
> see a connection to the used scheduler though, when the message comes
> out of __cpu_die(). There must be an excessive delay for the dying
> CPU to finally call cpu_exit_clear(). I wonder if the CPU might e.g.
> be scrubbing memory at that point. But that shouldn't happen this
> early.
>
>> The sibling threads shouldn't be inserted into the scheduler in the
>> first place, and I thought we took deliberate steps to prevent that from
>> occurring.
>
> I don't think we did, but I agree this may be worthwhile to do if it
> wouldn't result in adding ugly special cases somewhere.
Hmm, I wonder if my patch "xen/sched: populate cpupool0 only after all
cpus are up" from my core scheduling series might help?
I already thought of moving it rather to the beginning of the series as
it could go in even without the core scheduling.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-07-22 12:06 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-07-22 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2019-08-02 2:15 ` Andy Smith
2019-08-02 4:51 ` Juergen Gross
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Smith @ 2019-08-02 2:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper; +Cc: xen-devel, Jan Beulich
Hi,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:06:03PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/07/2019 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 21.07.2019 22:06, Andy Smith wrote:
> >> (XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
> >> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> >> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> >> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
> >> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
[…]
> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away?
Yes, I don't see this with sched=credit, smt=0 and SMT enabled in
the BIOS:
(XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
(XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
(XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
Thanks,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-08-02 2:15 ` Andy Smith
@ 2019-08-02 4:51 ` Juergen Gross
2019-08-02 10:13 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Juergen Gross @ 2019-08-02 4:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Smith, Andrew Cooper; +Cc: xen-devel, Jan Beulich
On 02.08.19 04:15, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:06:03PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 22/07/2019 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 21.07.2019 22:06, Andy Smith wrote:
>>>> (XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>
> […]
>
>> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away?
>
> Yes, I don't see this with sched=credit, smt=0 and SMT enabled in
> the BIOS:
>
> (XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e, date = 2019-04-02
> (XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
> (XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
This will be cured by my core scheduling series. As I don't think we
want to wait for that to go in I can isolate the related patches and
post them.
The needed patches will be:
xen/sched: use one schedule lock for all free cpus
xen/sched: populate cpupool0 only after all cpus are up
xen/sched: remove cpu from pool0 before removing it
xen/sched: add minimalistic idle scheduler for free cpus
With those in place credit2 will never be in charge for a cpu just being
brought up, which in turn can't block a cpu to be parked right away.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
2019-08-02 4:51 ` Juergen Gross
@ 2019-08-02 10:13 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2019-08-02 10:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Juergen Gross, Andy Smith; +Cc: xen-devel, Jan Beulich
On 02/08/2019 05:51, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 02.08.19 04:15, Andy Smith wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:06:03PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 22/07/2019 10:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.07.2019 22:06, Andy Smith wrote:
>>>>> (XEN) Adding cpu 1 to runqueue 0
>>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>>>> (XEN) CPU 1 still not dead...
>>
>> […]
>>
>>> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away?
>>
>> Yes, I don't see this with sched=credit, smt=0 and SMT enabled in
>> the BIOS:
>>
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0x2000057 to 0x200005e,
>> date = 2019-04-02
>> (XEN) Brought up 8 CPUs
>> (XEN) Parked 8 CPUs
>
> This will be cured by my core scheduling series. As I don't think we
> want to wait for that to go in I can isolate the related patches and
> post them.
Please do. The fix for this really wants to go back to all staging trees.
~Andrew
P.S. isn't it lovely when reported bugs are already fixed. I could get
used to this...
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-02 10:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-21 20:06 [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0 Andy Smith
2019-07-22 9:16 ` Jan Beulich
2019-07-22 12:06 ` Andrew Cooper
2019-07-22 12:18 ` Jan Beulich
2019-07-22 12:55 ` Juergen Gross
2019-08-02 2:15 ` Andy Smith
2019-08-02 4:51 ` Juergen Gross
2019-08-02 10:13 ` Andrew Cooper
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.