Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-133220-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <5f022f30-e1f2-46e3-b75b-0cb4b157448e@gaisler.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2024 17:05:49 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Only one CPU active on Ultra 60 since ~4.8 (regression)
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Cc: Nick Bowler <nbowler@draconx.ca>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
 Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>
References: <CADyTPEwt=ZNams+1bpMB1F9w_vUdPsGCt92DBQxxq_VtaLoTdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADyTPEyAidGgBT3f1VJLHb3ouO-r1UyvFp1PcwXxy0NRG94sbw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1df92fec-7f57-5080-94ed-b149ed384280@leemhuis.info>
 <14dcd743-144a-9f7b-849c-0843d50e4c04@draconx.ca>
 <4dce7447-678d-4e60-b76e-b01988bd6515@leemhuis.info>
 <CAHk-=wgFuoHpMk_Z_R3qMXVDgq0N1592+bABkyGjwwSL4zBtHA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Andreas Larsson <andreas@gaisler.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgFuoHpMk_Z_R3qMXVDgq0N1592+bABkyGjwwSL4zBtHA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2024-03-28 21:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 12:36, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
> Leemhuis) <regressions@leemhuis.info> wrote:
>>
>> [CCing Linus, in case I say something to his disliking]
>>
>> On 22.03.24 05:57, Nick Bowler wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a friendly reminder that this issue still happens on Linux 6.8 and
>>> reverting commit 9b2f753ec237 as indicated below is still sufficient to
>>> resolve the problem.
>>
>> FWIW, that commit 9b2f753ec23710 ("sparc64: Fix cpu_possible_mask if
>> nr_cpus is set") is from v4.8. Reverting it after all that time might
>> easily lead to even bigger trouble.
> 
> I'm definitely not reverting a patch from almost a decade ago as a regression.
> 
> If it took that long to find, it can't be that critical of a regression.
> 
> So yes, let's treat it as a regular bug. And let's bring in Andreas to
> the discussion too (although presumably he has seen it on the
> sparclinux mailing list).
Yes, I am aware and I agree we should treat it as a regular bug.

Reverting it as a regression fix would lead to followup issues like
canceling the effect of commit ebb99a4c12e4 ("sparc64: Fix irq stack
bootmem allocation.") but with misleading comments left in place. 

Sam's fix looks like a good solution for me to pick up to my
for-next branch.

Thanks,
Andreas