> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 06:10:40PM +0000, Liang, Kan wrote: > > The issue may be caused by uncore box initialization. > > > > For preventing the potential issues of uncore box initialization, I > > once moved the uncore_box_init() out of driver initialization in > > commit c05199e5a57a579fea1e8fa65e2b511ceb524ffc. > > > > However, it cause some desktop crash, because the box initialization > > codes were moved in IPI context. > > > > For fixing the crash issue, we had two choice at that time. > > - Simply revert the codes. That's where is > > 15c1247953e8a45232ed5a5540f291d2d0a77665 from. > > - Move uncore_box_init out of IPI context to uncore event > > init. I provided a patch for it. https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/28/21 > > Stephane Eranian also verified it on his platform > > > > At that time, we chose first option. But it looks there is some issue > > now. I guess we may try the second option this time. > > > > Matthew, > > > > Could you please revert > > 15c1247953e8a45232ed5a5540f291d2d0a77665 > > and apply the patch https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/4/26/294? > > See if it works? > > That patch is wrong though; how can even publish a PMU which is not > initialized? It's initialized but not in the driver initialization. We once encountered boot crashes which caused by uncore driver who trying to access non-existing boxes. Also this uncore boot warning. So I think it's better to move the box init code out of driver initialization to prevent such potential boot failures. Uncore event init should be a good place to do box init. Only when the box is not initialized and user tries to use uncore event, we do box initialization. Thanks, Kan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|