From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267369AbUGVXU1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:20:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267370AbUGVXU1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:20:27 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:50356 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267369AbUGVXUY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 19:20:24 -0400 Subject: Re: sched domains bringup race? From: Nathan Lynch To: Nick Piggin Cc: Keshavamurthy Anil S , Dave Hansen , "Matthew C. Dobson [imap]" , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <40FB78D5.1070604@yahoo.com.au> References: <1089944026.32312.47.camel@nighthawk> <20040718134559.A25488@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <40FB78D5.1070604@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1090533339.3041.13.camel@booger> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:55:40 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 02:31, Nick Piggin wrote: > Keshavamurthy Anil S wrote: > > Even on my system which is Intel 865 chipset (P4 with HT enabled system) > > I see a bug check somewhere in the schedular_tick during boot. > > However if I move the sched_init_smp() after do_basic_setup() the > > kernel boots without any problem. Any clue here? > > There shouldn't be any problem doing that if we have to, obviously we > need to know why. Is it possible that cpu_sibling_map, or one of the > CPU masks isn't set up correctly at the time of the call? In 2.6.8-rc1-mm1 at least, backing this patch out fixed it for me on ppc64: http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.8-rc1/2.6.8-rc1-mm1/broken-out/detect-too-early-schedule-attempts.patch Code with statements of the form: if (system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING) /* do something boot-specific */ else /* do something assuming system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING */ is broken by this change. Parts of the cpu bringup code in arch/ppc64 do this (and thus need to be fixed if the above change is kept). Chances are there is similar code in some x86 setups. Nathan