Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2, v2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages
From: Dmitry Adamushko
Date: Fri Nov 06 2009 - 07:56:37 EST
2009/11/6 Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> [ ... ]
>> > ...
>> > microcode: CPU0-1,3: patch_level=0x1000083
>> before or after loading a module? CPU2 is down, isn't it?
> No, no CPU was offline at this moment. They all were brought back
> online after some CPU hotplug and/or suspend/resume tests.
>> > microcode: CPU2-3: patch_level=0x1000065
> Both messages showed up after same ucode-update process.
>> same question as above.
> Same answer as above all CPUs are online.
>> Here, either CPUs 0 and 1 are down or have a
>> different version. Both above messages don't make sense taken together
> See, and that's the problem.
>> (CPU3 belongs to both sets) unless summarize_cpu_info() is utterly
> I didn't check that yet.
Yeah, this behavior is likely due to a missing cpumask_clear() in
should be as follows:
if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpulist, GFP_KERNEL))
>> sure, my test is somewhat limited... anyway, first of all I'd like to
>> get a clear understanding of your logs. Thanks for yout test btw. :-))
> I'll send you full logs asap.
Thanks. Maybe it's something about a particular sequence of actions
that triggers this behavior. Or was it reproducible with the very
first pm-suspend invocation after "modprobe microcode.ko"?
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/