From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 5.3-rc7
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2019 09:54:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <jpga7bdpoca.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CAHk-=wimjeOCi4k7+nhzx3XWzvQUbMtNpcKNo8ZteodQ5c5APg@mail.gmail.com
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> I'm really not clear on why it's a good idea to clear the LDR bits on
>> shutdown, and commit 558682b52919 ("x86/apic: Include the LDR when
>> clearing out APIC registers") just looks pointless. And now it has
>> proven to break some machines.
>>
>> So why wouldn't we just revert it?
>
> Side note: looking around for the discussion about this patch, at
> least one version of the patch from Bandan had
>
> + if (!x2apic_enabled) {
>
> rather than
>
> + if (!x2apic_enabled()) {
>
I believe this crept up by accident when I was preparing the series, my testing
was with x2apic_enabled() but I didn't test CPU hotplug - only the kdump path
with 32 bit guest. In hindsight, I should have been more careful with testing,
sorry about that.
Bandan
> which meant that whatever Bandan tested at that point was actually a
> complete no-op, since "!x2apic_enabled" is never true (it tests a
> function pointer against NULL, which it won't be).
>
> Then that was fixed by the time it hit -tip (and eventually my tree),
> but it kind of shows how the patch history of this is all
> questionable. Further strengthened by a quote from that discussion:
>
> "this is really a KVM bug but it doesn't hurt to clear out the LDR in
> the guest and then, it wouldn't need a hypervisor fix"
>
> and clearly it *does* hurt to clear the LDR in the guest, making the
> whole thinking behind the patch wrong and broken. The kernel clearly
> _does_ depend on LDR having the right contents.
>
> Now, I still suspect the boot problem then comes from our
> cpu0_logical_apicid use mentioned in that previous email, but at this
> point I think the proper fix is "revert for now, and we can look at
> this as a cleanup with the cpu0_logical_apicid thing for 5.4 instead".
>
> Hmm?
>
> Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-09 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-02 17:28 Linux 5.3-rc7 Linus Torvalds
2019-09-07 10:10 ` Chris Wilson
2019-09-07 14:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-07 14:41 ` Chris Wilson
2019-09-07 15:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-07 15:24 ` Chris Wilson
2019-09-07 20:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-07 19:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-07 19:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-09 13:54 ` Bandan Das [this message]
2019-09-07 20:44 ` Thomas Gleixner
2019-09-07 21:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-09-08 11:02 ` Sasha Levin
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=jpga7bdpoca.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy \
--to=bsd@redhat.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).