Re: [x86/time] 03fa63cc96: ACPI_Error:Table[DMAR]is_not_invalidated_during_early_boot_stage(#/tbxface -#)

[Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>]

On 07/07, Dou Liyang wrote:
>Hi xiaolong,
>
>Really thanks for your testing.
>
>At 07/07/2017 09:54 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>>On 07/06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>
>>>>commit: 03fa63cc96ab35592e0a7d522b8edbc1e6b02d22 ("x86/time: Initialize interrupt mode behind timer init")
>>>
>>>>+----------------+------------+------------+
>>>>|                | 43436935b7 | 03fa63cc96 |
>>>>+----------------+------------+------------+
>>>>| boot_successes | 0          | 4          |
>>>>+----------------+------------+------------+
>>>
>>>So 03fa63cc96 makes the box boot again. I'm confused as usual by the
>>>output of this tool.,
>>>
>>>>kern  :info  : [    0.005000] tsc: Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>>>>kern  :info  : [    0.006000] tsc: Detected 2195.020 MHz processor
>>>>kern  :info  : [    0.007000] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 4390.04 BogoMIPS (lpj=2195020)
>>>>kern  :info  : [    0.008001] pid_max: default: 90112 minimum: 704
>>>>kern  :info  : [    0.009037] ACPI: Core revision 20170303
>>>>kern  :err   : [    0.010002] ACPI Error: Table [DMAR] is not invalidated during early boot stage (20170303/tbxface-193)
>>>
>>>Sure we have a error message here, but compared to what? Compared to
>>>something which does not boot at all?
>>
>>Sorry for the confusion, here commit 43436935b7 boot failed due to OOM which
>>happened at the late stage of kernel boot while the ACPI error showed at the
>>early boot stage for commit 03fa63cc96 and it didn't appear in 43436935b7's
>>dmesg.
>>
>
>let's make the problem clearly firstly:
>
>1) Commit 43436935b7 ("x86/xen: Bypass intr mode setup in enlighten_pv
>system") made kernel boot failed, which caused by OOM.
>
>2) Commit 03fa63cc96 ("x86/time: Initialize interrupt mode behind
>timer init") can make the kernel boot success again, but with an ACPI
>error happened.
>
>And both *1* and *2* used the same configuration showed in the
>attachment.
>
>Does anything I missed?

Yes, this is exactly what I meant.

Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>Thanks,
>
>	dou.
>
>>Thanks,
>>Xiaolong
>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>	tglx
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>