Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.7 0/4] Assorted scheduling fixes

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 13:00 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Dario,
> On 04/05/16 10:06, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > On what hardware/emulator? The same Julien was using?
> > > 
> > > (XEN) CPU1 never came online
> > > (XEN) Failed to bring up CPU 1 (error -5)
> > > (XEN) Bringing up CPU2
> > > (XEN) CPU2 never came online
> > > (XEN) Failed to bring up CPU 2 (error -5)
> > > (XEN) Bringing up CPU3
> > > (XEN) CPU3 never came online
> > > (XEN) Failed to bring up CPU 3 (error -5)
> > > (XEN) Brought up 1 CPUs
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Which is not very reassuring. I don't know if that is expected.
> > > 
> > I don't know... I've never said this on any x86 box before, and I
> > wouldn't think it to be related to this series... do you see this
> > only
> > with the series applied?
> Xen ARM doesn't wait indefinitely a secondary CPU to come online. 
> Instead, if it isn't online after a 1s, it will be skipped.
> 
Ok.

> This could happen on the Foundation Model if the number of cores
> given 
> on the model command line, handled by the firmware and described in
> the 
> device tree don't match each other.
> 
Right. Thanks for the explanation.

So, does this mean that the behavior reported above by Konrad, i.e.,
logging and not crashing, is indeed intentional (or at least expected)
and that therefore even this version of the patch cures the issue?

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel