Re: [SMP BUG?] the return value of is_smp() is bug?

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 01 September 2014 18:00:58 long.wanglong wrote:
> On 2014/9/1 13:49, Wang Long wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,all
> > 
> > In kernel 3.17-rc2, when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y 
> > in .config file. the secondary core can not boot.
> > 
> > when i set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = n in .config file,
> > the secondary core can boot.
> > 
> > But this does not happen in kernel 3.10 lts kernel, Whether the 
> > CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP is set yes or no ,the secondary core can boot.
> > 
> > Does the meaning of CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP changed or this is a bug in kernel 3.17-rc2 ? 
> > 
> > 
> 
> hi Arnd
> 
> In above two cases, i also set  CONFIG_SMP = y. in addtion,
> the CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP depends on CONFIG_SMP. when set
> CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y, the value of CONFIG_SMP must be y.

I see.

I'm looking at the code more closely now:

> > config:     set CONFIG_HAVE_SMP = y and CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP = y
> > command:    # qemu-system-arm -M vexpress-a9 -smp 2  -m 128M -kernel arch/arm/boot/zImage -nographic
> > The output:
> > 
> > ..........
> > is_smp() return false;

This test basically checks whether the __fixup_smp_on_up code was
run or not. This has changed in bc41b8724f24 "ARM: 7846/1: Update
SMP_ON_UP code to detect A9MPCore with 1 CPU devices", in order
to support a quirk in the Aegis platform. Can you try reverting
that commit?

	Arnd
--
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/