+ Andreas.
Dude, look at this boot log below:
http://quora.org/2012/16-server-boot-2.txt
That's 192 F10h's!
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:54:59PM +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:A number of other callers lookup the PCI device based on index>from the PCI device in the first place.
0..amd_nb_num(), but we can't easily allocate contiguous northbridge IDs
OTOH we can simply this code by changing amd_get_node_id to generate a
linear northbridge ID from the index of the matching entry in the
northbridge array.
I'll get a patch together to see if there are any snags.
I suspected that after we have this nice approach, you guys would come
with non-contiguous node numbers. Maan, can't you build your systems so
that software people can have it easy at least for once??!
This really is a lot less intrusive [1] and boots well on top of
3.7-rc3 on one of our 16-server/192-core/512GB systems [2].
If you're happy with this simpler approach for now, I'll present
this and a separate patch cleaning up the inconsistent use of
unsigned and u8 node ID variables to u16?
Sure, bring it on.
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/amd_nb.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/amd_nb.h
index b3341e9..b88fc7a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/amd_nb.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/amd_nb.h
@@ -81,6 +81,18 @@ static inline struct amd_northbridge
*node_to_amd_nb(int node)
return (node < amd_northbridges.num) ?
&amd_northbridges.nb[node] : NULL;
}
+static inline u8 get_node_id(struct pci_dev *pdev)
+{
+ int i;
+
+ for (i = 0; i != amd_nb_num(); i++)
+ if (pci_domain_nr(node_to_amd_nb(i)->misc->bus) ==
pci_domain_nr(pdev->bus) &&
+ PCI_SLOT(node_to_amd_nb(i)->misc->devfn) ==
PCI_SLOT(pdev->devfn))
+ return i;
Looks ok, can you send the whole patch please?
+ BUG();
I'm not sure about this - maybe WARN()? Are we absolutely sure we
unconditionally should panic after not finding an NB descriptor?
Btw, this shouldn't happen on those CPUs:
[ 39.279131] TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#12]:
[ 39.287223] Measured 22750019569 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock.
[ 0.030000] tsc: Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed
I guess TSCs are not starting at the same moment on all boards.
You definitely need ucode on those too:
[ 113.392460] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x00000000