All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: long.wanglong@huawei.com (long.wanglong)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug?
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:01:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5407B9F5.2090000@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140901101952.GF30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 2014/9/1 18:19, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Firstly, do not send multiple copies of your message to mailing lists,
> certainly not within the three hours that you sent your three copies.
> If one of the addresses you sent the message to bounces, then it is
> *only* that one recipient who doesn't get your message, everyone else
> receives a copy.  So, there's now three copies of your message in the
> list archives, and people could end up replying to different messages.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:35:34PM +0800, Wang Long wrote:
>> Hi,all
>>
>> In kernel 3.17-rc2, when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y 
>> in .config file. the secondary core can not boot.
>>
>> when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = n in .config file,
>> the secondary core can boot.
>>
>> But this does not happen in kernel 3.10 lts kernel, Whether the 
>> CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set yes or no ,the secondary core can boot.
>>
>> Does the meaning of CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP changed or this is a bug in kernel 3.17-rc2 ? 
> 
> I think the answer is neither, because when the kernel is run on /real/
> hardware:
> 
> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/build/result.php?type=boot&idx=2514
> 
> it boots fine, bringing up all four CPUs.
> 
>> config:     set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
>> command:    # qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -smp 2  -m 128M -kernel arch/arm/boot/zImage -nographic
> 
> I've no idea how qemu works here, but if the CPU doesn't indicate that
> it's a SMP capable CPU, we will disable SMP extensions.
> 
>> The output:
>>
>> ..........
>> is_smp() return false;
>> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
>> missing device node for CPU 0
>> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
>> Setting up static identity map for 0x604643d8 - 0x60464430
>> Brought up 1 CPUs
>> SMP: Total of 1 processors activated.
>> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
>> ...........
> 
> You have decided that you'll edit the kernel messages, removing at least
> some of the information that could be relevant to the issue.  Please,
> only cut kernel messages when you are absolutely certain that they are
> not relevant to the problem you're reporting.
> 
> However, I don't think it would help much - I suspect that qemu doesn't
> provide emulation of the SCU base address register, and that's what your
> problem is.  qemu needs to be fixed in that regard.
> 

Hi,Russell King

Thank you for your reply. I will not send multiple copies of message to mailing lists.
The problem is that qemu doesn't provide emulation of the SCU base address register.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "long.wanglong" <long.wanglong@huawei.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, <victor.kamensky@linaro.org>,
	<nico@linaro.org>, <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>,
	<cov@codeaurora.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug?
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 09:01:41 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5407B9F5.2090000@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140901101952.GF30401@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 2014/9/1 18:19, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Firstly, do not send multiple copies of your message to mailing lists,
> certainly not within the three hours that you sent your three copies.
> If one of the addresses you sent the message to bounces, then it is
> *only* that one recipient who doesn't get your message, everyone else
> receives a copy.  So, there's now three copies of your message in the
> list archives, and people could end up replying to different messages.
> 
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 07:35:34PM +0800, Wang Long wrote:
>> Hi,all
>>
>> In kernel 3.17-rc2, when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y 
>> in .config file. the secondary core can not boot.
>>
>> when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = n in .config file,
>> the secondary core can boot.
>>
>> But this does not happen in kernel 3.10 lts kernel, Whether the 
>> CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set yes or no ,the secondary core can boot.
>>
>> Does the meaning of CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP changed or this is a bug in kernel 3.17-rc2 ? 
> 
> I think the answer is neither, because when the kernel is run on /real/
> hardware:
> 
> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/build/result.php?type=boot&idx=2514
> 
> it boots fine, bringing up all four CPUs.
> 
>> config:     set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
>> command:    # qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -smp 2  -m 128M -kernel arch/arm/boot/zImage -nographic
> 
> I've no idea how qemu works here, but if the CPU doesn't indicate that
> it's a SMP capable CPU, we will disable SMP extensions.
> 
>> The output:
>>
>> ..........
>> is_smp() return false;
>> CPU: Testing write buffer coherency: ok
>> missing device node for CPU 0
>> CPU0: thread -1, cpu 0, socket 0, mpidr 80000000
>> Setting up static identity map for 0x604643d8 - 0x60464430
>> Brought up 1 CPUs
>> SMP: Total of 1 processors activated.
>> CPU: All CPU(s) started in SVC mode.
>> ...........
> 
> You have decided that you'll edit the kernel messages, removing at least
> some of the information that could be relevant to the issue.  Please,
> only cut kernel messages when you are absolutely certain that they are
> not relevant to the problem you're reporting.
> 
> However, I don't think it would help much - I suspect that qemu doesn't
> provide emulation of the SCU base address register, and that's what your
> problem is.  qemu needs to be fixed in that regard.
> 

Hi,Russell King

Thank you for your reply. I will not send multiple copies of message to mailing lists.
The problem is that qemu doesn't provide emulation of the SCU base address register.



  reply	other threads:[~2014-09-04  1:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-01 11:35 [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug? Wang Long
2014-09-01 11:35 ` Wang Long
2014-09-01  8:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-01  8:49   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-01 10:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-09-01 10:19   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2014-09-04  1:01   ` long.wanglong [this message]
2014-09-04  1:01     ` long.wanglong
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-09-01 11:15 Wang Long
2014-09-01 11:15 ` Wang Long
2014-09-02  4:40 ` Leon Yu
2014-09-01  5:49 Wang Long
2014-09-01  5:49 ` Wang Long
2014-09-01 10:00 ` long.wanglong
2014-09-01 10:00   ` long.wanglong
2014-09-01 10:26   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-01 10:26     ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04  1:13     ` long.wanglong
2014-09-04  1:13       ` long.wanglong
2014-09-04  8:33       ` Peter Maydell
2014-09-04  8:33         ` Peter Maydell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5407B9F5.2090000@huawei.com \
    --to=long.wanglong@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.