On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 09:58 +0800, Chao Peng wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:32:11PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 08.07.15 at 18:17, wrote:
> > > I think it has to do with the fact that I've got CPU #0 on socket #1,
> > > while Boris' (and perhaps Chao's too) test box have it on socket
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 05:32:11PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.07.15 at 18:17, wrote:
> > I think it has to do with the fact that I've got CPU #0 on socket #1,
> > while Boris' (and perhaps Chao's too) test box have it on socket #0.
>
> Ah, yes, this is indeed a case I didn't consider w
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 04:38:52PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.07.15 at 17:11, wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> >> > @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
> >> > static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
> >>
On 07/08/2015 12:17 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 16:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.07.15 at 17:11, wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
@@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
static void smp_store_cpu_info
>>> On 08.07.15 at 18:17, wrote:
> I think it has to do with the fact that I've got CPU #0 on socket #1,
> while Boris' (and perhaps Chao's too) test box have it on socket #0.
Ah, yes, this is indeed a case I didn't consider when validating
Chao's analysis.
Jan
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 16:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.07.15 at 17:11, wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> >> > @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
> >> > static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
> >> > {
>
On 07/08/2015 11:38 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.07.15 at 17:11, wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
@@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
{
struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data + id;
>>> On 08.07.15 at 17:11, wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
>> > @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
>> > static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
>> > {
>> > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data + id;
>> > +unsigned
On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 13:38 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> > @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
> > static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
> > {
> > struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data + id;
> > +unsigned int socket;
> >
> > *c = boot_cpu_
>>> On 08.07.15 at 11:36, wrote:
> @@ -84,11 +85,21 @@ void *stack_base[NR_CPUS];
> static void smp_store_cpu_info(int id)
> {
> struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = cpu_data + id;
> +unsigned int socket;
>
> *c = boot_cpu_data;
> if ( id != 0 )
> +{
> identify_cpu(c);
>
>
For AP, phys_proc_id is still not valid in CPU_PREPARE notifier
(cpu_smpboot_alloc), so cpu_to_socket(cpu) is not valid as well.
Introduce a pre-allocated secondary_cpu_mask so that later in
smp_store_cpu_info() socket_cpumask[socket] can consume it.
Signed-off-by: Chao Peng
---
This is targeted
11 matches
Mail list logo
