Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1422809AbWKEXdV (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:33:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1422810AbWKEXdV (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:33:21 -0500 Received: from mail.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:41924 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422809AbWKEXdU (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:33:20 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [Opps] Invalid opcode Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 00:33:05 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 Cc: caglar@pardus.org.tr, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gerd Hoffmann , john stultz References: <200611051507.37196.caglar@pardus.org.tr> <200611052151.14861.caglar@pardus.org.tr> <454E7008.4020200@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <454E7008.4020200@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200611060033.06100.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1514 Lines: 36 On Monday 06 November 2006 00:13, Zachary Amsden wrote: > S.Çağlar Onur wrote: > > Hmm, Novell bugzilla seems has similiar issues, > > https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204647 and its duplicated ones > > gaves same or similiar panic outputs. > > > > > >> Previously we avoided converting i386 cpu bootup fully to the new state > >> machine because it is very fragile, but it's possible that there > >> is no other choice than to do it properly. Or maybe another kludge > >> is possible. > >> > > Yes, this is some kind of softirq race during init. Yes, the callbacks run at the wrong time. Unlike modern architectures i386 doesn't do callback cpu boot callback repeat, but boot all cpus then callback. But the strange thing is that the BP hits it. Normally the new CPU hit it because it tried to run a timer interrupt before the callback ran and initialized all the per CPU state (this happened often when dual core CPUs were first introduced for some reason) In this case it looks like the AP managed to queue a tasklet before the cpu up callback runs. I suppose we'll either need to convert i386 really over to standard cpu_up() or add some additional spinlocks to stop the APs with interrupts off before the callbacks start to run. -Andi - 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/