On Mon, 2024-05-13 at 12:50 +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote: > > So why didn't the people running current mainline on pre-EV56 Alpha > > systems notice? One possibility is that they are upgrading their > > kernels only occasionally. Another possibility is that they are seeing > > the failures, but are not tracing the obtuse failure modes back to the > > change(s) in question. Yet another possibility is that the resulting > > failures are very low probability, with mean times to failure that are > > so long that you won't notice anything on a single system. > > Another possibility is that the Jensen system was booted into uni processer > mode. Looking at the early boot log [1] provided by Ulrich (+CCed) back in > Sept. 2021, I see the following by running "grep -i cpu": > > > > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-alpha&m=163265555616841&w=2 > > [ 0.000000] Memory: 90256K/131072K available (8897K kernel code, 9499K rwdata, \ > 2704K rodata, 312K init, 437K bss, 40816K reserved, 0K cma-reserved) [ 0.000000] \ > random: get_random_u64 called from __kmem_cache_create+0x54/0x600 with crng_init=0 [ \ > 0.000000] SLUB: HWalign=64, Order=0-3, MinObjects=0, CPUs=1, Nodes=1 [ 0.000000] > ^^^^^^ > > Without any concurrent atomic updates, the "broken" atomic accesses won't > matter, I guess. At least from my perspective, the machines that matter for hobbyists are uni-processors, i.e. workstations. I don't know of any early Alpha workstations from the tip of my head that are multi-processor. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
