Re: WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c:310topology_sane.clone.1+0x6e/0x81()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2012-05-29 at 17:29 +0200, Andreas Herrmann wrote:

> I've also looked at this. core_siblings mask is broken with this patch.
> And there is this new irritating warning ...

Hehe, you made this irritating hardware ;-) But fair enough.

> I second Boris' suggestion for a fix. But I think the check for
> X86_FEATURE_AMD_DCM should go into topology_sane() which in theory
> could check other things as well.

Unless you plan to go span cache (or even SMT siblings) over physical
IDs I'd strongly argue against putting it in topology_sane().

As it stands I think we should discuss the definition for the generic
topology bits (drivers/base/topology.c), because I think your
Magny-Cours thing does the wrong thing here.

The core span in a phys_id is all nice and such, but what does it mean?
IOW what would you do with it?

I would think the LLC range and the node-span are much more useful
things to have. Once you have nodes the sysfs node topology takes over.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/