From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754827Ab3KLLhR (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:37:17 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:60282 "EHLO mail-ee0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752016Ab3KLLhO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Nov 2013 06:37:14 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 12:37:10 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Yinghai Lu , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/boot changes for v3.13 Message-ID: <20131112113710.GA12998@gmail.com> References: <20131111170558.GA12741@gmail.com> <20131112103422.GA12849@pd.tnic> <20131112112338.GA12801@gmail.com> <20131112113208.GC12849@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131112113208.GC12849@pd.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:23:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So I suspect what Yinghai tried to say if CPU0 and CPU1 are not on the > > same node we do the printout incorrectly. > > I hope your translation is correct :) I'd still like to get a > confirmation from him though. > > > Arguably this was a pre-existing condition, but would be nice to fix > > it now that this code has emerged out of steady bitrot! :-) > > > > How difficult would it be in your opinion? > > Well, I did try a weird, non-existant configuration: > > kvm ... -smp 6 -numa node,nodeid=0,cpus=0\;2\;3 -numa node,nodeid=1,cpus=1\;4\;5 > > and what I get is: > > [ 0.068574] x86: Booting SMP configuration: > [ 0.069006] .... node #1, CPUs: #1 > [ 0.147005] .... node #0, CPUs: #2 #3 #4 #5 > [ 0.445273] x86: Booted up 2 nodes, 6 CPUs > > Before my cleanup and after removing the "fixing up alternatives" > message which hid things, the output looked like: > > [ 0.069621] smpboot: Booting Node 1, Processors # 1 OK > [ 0.146006] smpboot: Booting Node 0, Processors # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 OK > [ 0.448320] Brought up 6 CPUs > > The problem is not the indentation but that the current code slaps all > cpus on the last node, in this case node 0, because announce_cpu gets > the cores one by one. > > A possible fix would be to collect the topology and dump it *only* > *after* the last core has been announced. Hm, I think it's actually a bonus that we see the individual CPUs printed as they boot up. That way if there's a hang, the place where it hangs is apparent, etc. Thanks, Ingo