On 11/29/10 10:08, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 07:52 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> On 11/29/10 09:47, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2010 06:35 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2010 06:33 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:26:27 -0800 Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:49:11 +1100 Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Changes since 20101119:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kvm.c:(.init.text+0x11f49): undefined reference to
>>>>>>
>>>>> `kvm_register_clock'
>>>>>
>>>>>> when CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK is not enabled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> BUild error still present in linux-next-2010-NOV-29.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Glauber, Zach?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can only speculate this reference is being called from smpboot without
>>> CONFIG guarding?
>>>
>> Sorry, looks like I dropped the first line of the error messages:
>>
>> arch/x86/built-in.o: In function `kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu':
>> kvm.c:(.init.text+0xad38): undefined reference to `kvm_register_clock'
>>
>> from arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c:
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>> {
>> WARN_ON(kvm_register_clock("primary cpu clock"));
>> kvm_guest_cpu_init();
>> native_smp_prepare_boot_cpu();
>> }
>>
>> so it looks like you are correct...
>>
>
> Looks like this is the appropriate fix:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> static void __init kvm_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_CLOCK
> WARN_ON(kvm_register_clock("primary cpu clock"));
> #endif
> kvm_guest_cpu_init();
> native_smp_prepare_boot_cpu();
> }
Sure, that works. Thanks.
>
> The SMP code is still buggy as well, wrt printk timing, in that it
> doesn't get called early enough, correct? Has anyone thought of a good
> solution to that problem?
>
> Basically the problem is CPU-1 will get CPU-0's per-cpu areas copied
> over, and these are not valid for CPU-1. If the clocksource is used on
> CPU-1 before kvm clock gets setup, it can go backwards, wreaking havoc,
> causing panic, etc.
>
> What is the best test to guard against this? Perhaps we should keep the
> CPU number in the per-cpu data and test against it?
--
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***
--
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
