[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:18:34 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1;spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com;dkim=pass header.d=suse.com;arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=EMZLFoCYeosz08whAWQSnWp2kPiJOK9dBoq+q7xW7Hk=; b=npJO+alxR1R0Sm7MDL89Qwi/ao7Wv6dnmSpSOwyfhmMqsUKMZ0EuZTawyAP8UASpLqwxfyrA53VMPqSfMQ76ZOPY6wWSmEvCrozfdrpbn64v9bjvOrUFKx6pFtQUyZjUcXA0bPuR52rqbeGv7PyI1gSkxDxYEkMxRY9YGTefYcYtZr0fE9F5N5VA1UJFgcCbd18waKkZX8fbfU5Sgqnw0gZAAHtgRPu03mBm2i5UnHfWbEZWKKPCBnVjtZOrPlYIUVeT7I2WH5wSX+VL2ARhFawDmWS42aak+FXEu4TC5sGpYUM+GyheNwmhun+t1/5nkouUum1fY7Gr4tTHrY2bqA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=XOKHxdAwO4jr85VWqhK7bntDDn+R0k88ToX4N/8VWwpAYwukiKMWdFUFAhf88RjR9txkbu3WOjRVbxG3pZdN4MG53xqMMDy3jpxHDLEdCjrIX3IuIK2H/ee+3/9g5K4LeOx5fHh2GMXUciNRdnQ1WkbS5cILLhNPIRW+KZyyqHsVHdj+quB1v1Et90zhojuoi6to7+zybMoyTBopD2QqFYsFWpmx8sS5ysakNTgJ2ngN1i8FkEAnPX2Gii9zlIlTn22VM8ADL6Hp2hV53EXsX8dOugonODxB0pkKACHZR+ucfMkBJiyShKqClbsEy/lLrqPPtWuGH8D7AjOch+Nsvg==
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=JBeulich@xxxxxxxx;
- Cc: Andy Smith <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 12:19:57 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Thread-index: AQHVP//515Jyq7gbbE+1g3GDqkihQ6bWXCcAgAAvoO+AAANagA==
- Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] "CPU N still not dead..." messages during microcode update stage of boot when smt=0
On 22.07.2019 14:06, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Does reverting back to credit1 make the issue go away? I've never
> encountered this on any smt=0 test, but I also don't use credit2 at all.
I'll try to remember trying this out the next time I see it. I can't
see a connection to the used scheduler though, when the message comes
out of __cpu_die(). There must be an excessive delay for the dying
CPU to finally call cpu_exit_clear(). I wonder if the CPU might e.g.
be scrubbing memory at that point. But that shouldn't happen this
early.
> The sibling threads shouldn't be inserted into the scheduler in the
> first place, and I thought we took deliberate steps to prevent that from
> occurring.
I don't think we did, but I agree this may be worthwhile to do if it
wouldn't result in adding ugly special cases somewhere.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
