From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757554AbZCMEzq (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:55:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751665AbZCMEzf (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:55:35 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43090 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624AbZCMEze (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:55:34 -0400 Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:55:16 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Rusty Russell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Mike Travis Subject: Re: [PULL] x86 cpumask work Message-ID: <20090313045516.GA27326@elte.hu> References: <200903121453.45163.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <200903131316.26455.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> <20090313032015.GD18760@elte.hu> <200903131504.09388.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903131504.09388.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Rusty Russell wrote: > On Friday 13 March 2009 13:50:15 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > On Friday 13 March 2009 11:27:43 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Rusty Russell wrote: > > > > > Missing a core patch (it even got a compile warning with that > > > > > config). > > > > So it's manual work and sometimes i notice them amongst a > > > > boatload of other warnings, sometimes i dont. > > > > > > Me too :( I thought you were starting a de-warning tree? I'd > > > be happy to send you patches (particularly, exporting > > > deprecated symbols should not give a warning!). > > > > Yeah - i have a de-warning tree, but it's not yet fully up and > > running for -tip qa automation. > > > > > > > But there's something else wrong. Firing up my 64-bit > > > > > test box now. > > > > > > > > Great - so you can reproduce. Thanks, > > > > > > Yep, and I'm running some stress tests as well now. > > > > > > Perhaps throw away that tree, and I'll feed you a new one (the > > > core patch needs to go at the front), but I can work either > > > way. > > > > Ok, i dropped it back to d95c357. > > > > Suggestion for future workflow: we wouldnt have these somewhat > > stressful (and stressful to you mostly!), large hickups and > > history-less trees if you sent stuff more gradually and not so > > close to the merge window. You exposed some of your changes to > > linux-next but that's not nearly enough testing in practice for > > x86-affecting patches. > > Yes, I wanted to complete the patchset to make sure I wasn't going to hit > some subtle problem. > > OK, please check the first patch (it's a new addition, I *think* using > the topology_* macros is right here), and the other change is: > > Here's the other change: it's a little ugly (AFAICT boot_cpu_data isn't > even *used* on 64 bit, so a cleanup may be in order): > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c > @@ -329,6 +329,23 @@ notrace static void __cpuinit start_seco > cpu_idle(); > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK > +/* In this case, llc_shared_map is a pointer to a cpumask. */ > +static inline void copy_cpuinfo_x86(struct cpuinfo_x86 *dst, > + const struct cpuinfo_x86 *src) > +{ > + struct cpumask *llc = dst->llc_shared_map; > + *dst = *src; > + dst->llc_shared_map = llc; > +} > +#else > +static inline void copy_cpuinfo_x86(struct cpuinfo_x86 *dst, > + const struct cpuinfo_x86 *src) > +{ > + *dst = *src; > +} > +#endif /* CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK */ > + > /* > * The bootstrap kernel entry code has set these up. Save them for > * a given CPU > @@ -338,7 +355,7 @@ void __cpuinit smp_store_cpu_info(int id > { > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data(id); > > - *c = boot_cpu_data; > + copy_cpuinfo_x86(c, &boot_cpu_data); > c->cpu_index = id; > if (id != 0) > identify_secondary_cpu(c); > > BTW, these didn't go thru linux-next: your testing is better and your > tree is too different or me to ask Stephen to merge. > > Thanks! > Rusty. > > The following changes since commit d95c3578120e5bc4784069439f00ccb1b5f87717: > Ingo Molnar (1): > Merge branch 'x86/core' into cpus4096 > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rusty/linux-2.6-x86.git cpus4096 Pulled, thanks Rusty! Will let you know if something breaks. Ingo