Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754180AbbHJNXv (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:23:51 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:15862 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752264AbbHJNXm convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:23:42 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,645,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="745652426" From: "Liang, Kan" To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Matthew Leach , Ingo Molnar , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org" , "eranian@google.com" , "'Andi Kleen'" , "'Bjorn Helgaas'" , "'Vince Weaver'" , "'Sonny Rao'" Subject: RE: [BUG]: Intel uncore boot warning introduced in 4.1 Thread-Topic: [BUG]: Intel uncore boot warning introduced in 4.1 Thread-Index: AQHQ0DQDWimE4aNdy0203FBuIqvjX53/JUDlgAAZuZCAAHsIgIAFfeNQ Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:23:34 +0000 Message-ID: <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077018DF43E@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> References: <1438853676.3139.20.camel@mattleach.net> <87bneko0o5.fsf@mattleach.net> <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077018D32C2@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20150807090553.GC16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20150807090553.GC16853@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.239.127.40] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1917 Lines: 48 > On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 06:10:40PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > The issue may be caused by uncore box initialization. > > > > For preventing the potential issues of uncore box initialization, I > > once moved the uncore_box_init() out of driver initialization in > > commit c05199e5a57a579fea1e8fa65e2b511ceb524ffc. > > > > However, it cause some desktop crash, because the box initialization > > codes were moved in IPI context. > > > > For fixing the crash issue, we had two choice at that time. > > - Simply revert the codes. That's where is > > 15c1247953e8a45232ed5a5540f291d2d0a77665 from. > > - Move uncore_box_init out of IPI context to uncore event > > init. I provided a patch for it. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/21 > > Stephane Eranian also verified it on his platform > > > > At that time, we chose first option. But it looks there is some issue > > now. I guess we may try the second option this time. > > > > Matthew, > > > > Could you please revert > > 15c1247953e8a45232ed5a5540f291d2d0a77665 > > and apply the patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/26/294? > > See if it works? > > That patch is wrong though; how can even publish a PMU which is not > initialized? It's initialized but not in the driver initialization. We once encountered boot crashes which caused by uncore driver who trying to access non-existing boxes. Also this uncore boot warning. So I think it's better to move the box init code out of driver initialization to prevent such potential boot failures. Uncore event init should be a good place to do box init. Only when the box is not initialized and user tries to use uncore event, we do box initialization. Thanks, Kan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/