From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753870AbcEGFQP (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2016 01:16:15 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]:38156 "EHLO mail-wm0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753296AbcEGFQL (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2016 01:16:11 -0400 Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 07:16:05 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Joseph Salisbury , "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" , Andi Kleen , Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Borislav Petkov , Brian Gerst , Denys Vlasenko , "H. Peter Anvin" , Harish Chegondi , Jacob Pan , Jiri Olsa , Kan Liang , Linus Torvalds , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Stephane Eranian , Toshi Kani , Vince Weaver , LKML , yingying.zhao@intel.com, "Zhang, Xiong Y" , 1573231@bugs.launchpad.net, 1397880@bugs.launchpad.net, Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org, Andy Shevchenko , Chen Yucong , Laura Abbott , Boris Ostrovsky , David Vrabel Subject: Re: [v4.6-rc1 Regression] x86/topology: Create logical package id Message-ID: <20160507051605.GA13962@gmail.com> References: <572CDF53.7040301@canonical.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > I was hoping to get your feedback, since you are the patch author. Do > > you think gathering any additional data will help diagnose this issue, > > or would it be best to submit a revert request? > > Yuck. That dies with a divide error. And that looks like XEN is supplying crap > data in the CPUID. > > Does the patch below cure the issue? > > Thanks, > > tglx > > 8<--------------- > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > @@ -332,6 +332,11 @@ static void __init smp_init_package_map( > * primary cores. > */ > ncpus = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores; > + if (!ncpus) { > + pr_warn("x86_max_cores == zero !?!?"); > + ncpus = 1; > + } > + Even if the underlying Xen bug is fixed, I think we should add this protective measure to defend against future CPUID mishaps. Thanks, Ingo