Hi Kevin, It is very unlikely that the patch you pointed has any impact on the the hang I am seeing. The patch you have mentioned got into kernel around 2.6.32 timeframe. I am able to boot both 2.6.32 and 2.6.33 kernel ( + stackframe patch) . Hi Stuart, I haven't got much time to spend on this today. I had got 2.6.36-stable(+ stack frame patch) booting last day and I have observed hang issue with 2.6.37-rc1 ( Same as rc6 and current git head) So probably some patches in 2.6.37 branch introduced this hang. Hopefully I will get some free slot tomorrow so that I can look into code diff . Thanks Anoop On Mon, 2010-12-27 at 09:49 -0600, STUART VENTERS wrote: > Kevin, > > Outstanding, sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. > > > Anoop, > > Maybe we can get lucky again. > > If you can isolate the .33 works/.37 works_not bug to a specific pair of versions, > I'll be happy to do another diff. > > > Hope you'll have had a good Christmas as well. > We've had snow in Alabama since Christmas eve! > > > Regards, > > Stuart > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin D. Kissell [mailto:kevink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 5:34 PM > To: Anoop P A > Cc: STUART VENTERS; Anoop P.A.; linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: SMTC support status in latest git head. > > > Ah, well, at least we have a stackframe.h fix that preserves David's > performance tweak for the deeper pipelined processors. In looking for > this, I did notice that someone did some modification to the SMTC clock > tick logic that I was skeptical had ever been tested. If you've still > got that kernel binary handy, you might check to see if it boots with > maxtcs=1 maxvpes=1, maxtcs=2 maxvpes=1, and/or maxtcs=2 maxvpes=2. > > Oh, yes, and Merry Christmas one and all! > > Regards, > > Kevin K. > > On 12/24/10 8:02 AM, Anoop P A wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 06:53 -0800, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > >> Excellent! Now, does the attached patch (relative to 2.6.37.11) also > >> fix things, while preserving the other fixes and performance enhancements? > >> > > I have tested that patch with 2.6.37 branch it well passes calibration > > loop but hangs after switching to mips closource > > > > TC 6 going on-line as CPU 6 > > Brought up 7 CPUs > > bio: create slab<bio-0> at 0 > > SCSI subsystem initialized > > Switching to clocksource MIPS > > > > I Presume this is a different issue as restoring older file didn't help > > much to get rid of this hang. > > > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h > > b/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h > > index 58730c5..7fc9f10 100644 > > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h > > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h > > @@ -195,9 +195,9 @@ > > * to cover the pipeline delay. > > */ > > .set mips32 > > - mfc0 v1, CP0_TCSTATUS > > + mfc0 v0, CP0_TCSTATUS > > .set mips0 > > - LONG_S v1, PT_TCSTATUS(sp) > > + LONG_S v0, PT_TCSTATUS(sp) > > #endif /* CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMTC */ > > LONG_S $4, PT_R4(sp) > > LONG_S $5, PT_R5(sp) > > > > > >> /K. > >> > >> On 12/24/10 6:39 AM, Anoop P A wrote: > >>> Hi Kevin, Stuart , > >>> > >>> Woohooo You guys spotted !. > >>> > >>> http://git.linux-mips.org/?p=linux.git;a=commit;h=d5ec6e3c seems to be > >>> the culprit > >>> > >>> Once I restored previous version of stackframe.h 2.6.33-stable started > >>> booting !. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Anoop > >>> > >>> On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 04:32 -0800, Kevin D. Kissell wrote: > >>>> Thank you, Stuart! I've spotted some definite breakage to SMTC between > >>>> those versions. In arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h, someone moved > >>>> the store of the Status register value in SAVE_SOME (line 169 or 204, > >>>> depending on the version) from two instructions after the mfc0 to a > >>>> point after the #ifdef for SMTC, presumably to get better pipelining of > >>>> the register access. Unfortunately, the v1 register is also used in the > >>>> SMTC-specific fragment to save TCStatus, so the Status value gets > >>>> clobbered before it gets stored. This will eventually result in the > >>>> Status register getting a TCStatus value, which has some bits on common, > >>>> but isn't identical and sooner or later Bad Things will happen. > >>>> > >>>> I'm a little surprised this wasn't caught by visual inspection of the patch. > >>>> > >>>> Possible solutions would include reverting the store of the CP0_STATUS > >>>> value to the block above the #ifdef, or, to retain whatever performance > >>>> advantage was obtained by moving the store downward, to use v0/$2 > >>>> instead of v1/$3, as the staging register for the TCStatus value. I'd > >>>> lean toward the second option, but I'm not in a position to test and > >>>> submit a patch just now. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> > >>>> Kevin K. > >>>> > >>>> On 12/23/10 1:09 PM, STUART VENTERS wrote: > >>>>> Kevin, > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm not sure if it's useful, > >>>>> but finally I got the time to look at the two kernel versions Anoop pointed out. > >>>>> works 2.6.32-stable with patch 804 > >>>>> works_not 2.6.33-stable > >>>>> > >>>>> greping for files with CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMTC > >>>>> and looking for timer interrupt related stuff found the following differences: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/mips/include/asm/irq.h > >>>>> arch/mips/kernel/irq.c > >>>>> do_IRQ > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/mips/include/asm/stackframe.h > >>>>> SAVE_SOME SAVE_TEMP get/set_saved_sp > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/mips/include/asm/time.h > >>>>> clocksource_set_clock > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/mips/kernel/process.c > >>>>> cpu_idle > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/mips/kernel/smtc.c > >>>>> __irq_entry > >>>>> ipi_decode > >>>>> SMTC_CLOCK_TICK > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Enclosed are the two subsets of files for a more expert look. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'll try to look in more detail after Christmas. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers, > >>>>> > >>>>> Stuart > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > > >
