| Message ID | 20190827151815.2160-4-will@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | ebef746543fd1aa162216b0e484eb9062b65741d |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Try to make SMP booting slightly less fragile | expand |
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:18:15PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > When we fail to bring a secondary CPU online and it fails in an unknown > state, we should assume the worst and increment 'cpus_stuck_in_kernel' > so that things like kexec() are disabled. Definitely! I has assumed we already did this, but I see that we don't. > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> I don't see a nicer way of doing this, so: Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> Thanks, Mark. > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c > index 1f8aeb77cba5..dc9fe879c279 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c > @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle) > default: > pr_err("CPU%u: failed in unknown state : 0x%lx\n", > cpu, status); > + cpus_stuck_in_kernel++; > break; > case CPU_KILL_ME: > if (!op_cpu_kill(cpu)) { > -- > 2.11.0 >
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c index 1f8aeb77cba5..dc9fe879c279 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c @@ -147,6 +147,7 @@ int __cpu_up(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle) default: pr_err("CPU%u: failed in unknown state : 0x%lx\n", cpu, status); + cpus_stuck_in_kernel++; break; case CPU_KILL_ME: if (!op_cpu_kill(cpu)) {
When we fail to bring a secondary CPU online and it fails in an unknown state, we should assume the worst and increment 'cpus_stuck_in_kernel' so that things like kexec() are disabled. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> --- arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)