Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date:   Wed, 6 Dec 2023 21:10:35 -0800
From:   Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To:     "Zhang, Rui" <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Cc:     "linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "jsperbeck@google.com" <jsperbeck@google.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sashal@kernel.org" <sashal@kernel.org>,
        "tip-bot2@linutronix.de" <tip-bot2@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [tip: x86/urgent] x86/acpi: Ignore invalid x2APIC entries
Message-ID: <20231207051035.yef3jix44uo6jlav@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <169953729188.3135.6804572126118798018.tip-bot2@tip-bot2>
 <20231122221947.781812-1-jsperbeck@google.com>
 <1e565bb08ebdd03897580a5905d1d2de01e15add.camel@intel.com>
 <904ce2b870b8a7f34114f93adc7c8170420869d1.camel@intel.com>
 <20231206065850.hs7k554v6wym7gw5@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <c3b064004a1748c68829f804b3da56a610fbfc8e.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c3b064004a1748c68829f804b3da56a610fbfc8e.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2023-12-07 02:41:34 +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 22:58 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 2023-12-01 08:31:48 +0000, Zhang, Rui wrote:
> > > As a quick fix, I'm not going to fix the "potential issue"
> > > describes
> > > above because we have not seen a real problem caused by this yet.
> > > 
> > > Can you please try the below patch to confirm if the problem is
> > > gone on
> > > your system?
> > > This patch falls back to the previous way as sent at
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87pm4bp54z.ffs@tglx/T/
> > 
> > 
> > I've just spent a couple hours bisecting why upgrading to 6.7-rc4
> > left me with
> > just a single CPU core on my dual socket workstation.
> > 
> > 
> > before:
> > [??? 0.000000] Linux version 6.6.0-andres-00003-g31255e072b2e ...
> > ...
> > [??? 0.022960] ACPI: Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration
> > information
> > ...
> > [??? 0.022968] smpboot: Allowing 40 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
> > ...
> > [??? 0.345921] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5215 CPU @
> > 2.50GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x55, stepping: 0x7)
> > ...
> > [??? 0.347229] .... node? #0, CPUs:??????? #1? #2? #3? #4? #5? #6?
> > #7? #8? #9
> > [??? 0.349082] .... node? #1, CPUs:?? #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17
> > #18 #19
> > [??? 0.003190] smpboot: CPU 10 Converting physical 0 to logical die 1
> > 
> > [??? 0.361053] .... node? #0, CPUs:?? #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27
> > #28 #29
> > [??? 0.363990] .... node? #1, CPUs:?? #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37
> > #38 #39
> > ...
> > [??? 0.370886] smp: Brought up 2 nodes, 40 CPUs
> > [??? 0.370891] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
> > [??? 0.370896] smpboot: Total of 40 processors activated (200000.00
> > BogoMIPS)
> > [??? 0.403905] node 0 deferred pages initialised in 32ms
> > [??? 0.408865] node 1 deferred pages initialised in 37ms
> > 
> > 
> > after:
> > [??? 0.000000] Linux version 6.6.0-andres-00004-gec9aedb2aa1a ...
> > ...
> > [??? 0.022935] ACPI: Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration
> > information
> > ...
> > [??? 0.022942] smpboot: Allowing 1 CPUs, 0 hotplug CPUs
> > ...
> > [??? 0.356424] smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 5215 CPU @
> > 2.50GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x55, stepping: 0x7)
> > ...
> > [??? 0.357098] smp: Bringing up secondary CPUs ...
> > [??? 0.357107] smp: Brought up 2 nodes, 1 CPU
> > [??? 0.357108] smpboot: Max logical packages: 1
> > [??? 0.357110] smpboot: Total of 1 processors activated (5000.00
> > BogoMIPS)
> > [??? 0.726283] node 0 deferred pages initialised in 368ms
> > [??? 0.774704] node 1 deferred pages initialised in 418ms
> > 
> > 
> > There does seem to be something off with the ACPI data, when booting
> > without
> > the patch,
> 
> which patch are you referring to? the original patch in this thread?

Yes, the the original patch / the state in 6.7-rc4.


> Does the second patch fixes the problem? I mean the patch at
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/904ce2b870b8a7f34114f93adc7c8170420869d1.camel@intel.com/

Yes.

Greetings,

Andres Freund