On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 12:24 +0530, Sachin Sant wrote: > Xiaotian Feng wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Sachin Sant <sachinp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Xiaotian Feng wrote: > >> > >>> Does this testcase hotplug cpu 0 off? > >>> > >>> > >> No, i don't think so. It skips cpu0 during online/offline > >> process. > >> > > > > Then how could this happen ? Looks like cpu 0 is offline .... > > 0:mon> <4>IRQ 17 affinity broken off cpu 0 > > <4>IRQ 18 affinity broken off cpu 0 > > <4>IRQ 19 affinity broken off cpu 0 > > <4>IRQ 264 affinity broken off cpu 0 > > <4>cpu 0 (hwid 0) Ready to die... > > <7>clockevent: decrementer mult[83126e97] shift[32] cpu[0] > > > Sorry i was looking at only one script. Looking more closely > at the test there are 6 different sub tests. The rest of the > tests do seem to hotplug CPU 0. Ooh, cute, so you can actually hotplug cpu 0.. no wonder that didn't get exposed on x86. Still, the only time cpu_active_mask should not be equal to cpu_online_mask is when we're in the middle of a hotplug, we clear active early and set it late, but its all done under the hotplug mutex, so we can at most have 1 cpu differences with online mask. Unless of course, I messed up, which appears to be rather likely given these problems ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
