From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A6F6C74A5B for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229838AbjC2TUh (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:20:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58430 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229819AbjC2TUf (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Mar 2023 15:20:35 -0400 Received: from mail.unsolicited.net (mail.unsolicited.net [IPv6:2001:8b0:15df::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F18E91BB for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 12:20:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=unsolicited.net; s=one; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8pbGV+Pit4mlON4UjRpeZJgYtqVP3pcDx6q0DmLRYwU=; b=K2adBP3PzJrP5OF/MBaS7CLGw0 QxhRkr2iR2/izFwIvb0BKJW6z8l5hoYdMkXEsEGOCPNXvZZmj1nCQwxSXfcejkJF0h3YSYrYGGQhP Metl2d6wQFS0XXSlaSs8TXnNrqHFiEqxRfb9GmI/Xh13AM3qI6NerjMZ1CXMw6XJce825l38+5uq4 yBDxq8Na1OteJhKUbrv/c5rD2FeEdKiyPbVSAmg5ixe0prs8n1mB3sRpT3LqGVbud46PO3EhmP8mC HhLJq9EMzU/9WvJ09wO8dpPd6Kh3hDZO0KzBjzwWcJo0iwGIvvWP0ThZlf+ALENH5RRD3UxMl5O4x SlfRPUig==; Message-ID: <7218e006-9f4f-a9bc-cdd2-a595a8e64ede@unsolicited.net> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 20:20:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 Subject: Re: Panic starting 6.2.x and later 6.1.x kernels Content-Language: en-GB To: "Limonciello, Mario" , Borislav Petkov , Gabriel David , eric.devolder@oracle.com Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Thomas Gleixner , Kishon Vijay Abraham I References: <943d2445-84df-d939-f578-5d8240d342cc@unsolicited.net> <20230327074952.GAZCFKoDOiJUdtse2H@fat_crate.local> <4c660f0f-2845-0e02-ccf9-619958e24236@unsolicited.net> <20230328142014.GCZCL3nkW5Qx5jhfsB@fat_crate.local> <57385475-c289-356f-d696-fc6decce1390@unsolicited.net> <20230328171057.GDZCMfobguhGUFiUuh@fat_crate.local> <9ed16be4-051d-c20f-0410-b8a973c4c09e@disroot.org> <20230329103943.GAZCQVb1n3tKlGOAWI@fat_crate.local> <20230329161450.GDZCRj+rz9lTEZFNBz@fat_crate.local> From: David R In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29/03/2023 20:17, Limonciello, Mario wrote: > On 3/29/2023 14:14, David R wrote: >> I note that 6.2.8 still has: >> >> static bool __init acpi_is_processor_usable(u32 lapic_flags) >> { >>          if (lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) >>                  return true; >> >>          if (acpi_support_online_capable && (lapic_flags & >> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE)) >>                  return true; >> >>          return false; >> } >> >> The flag getting set to false won't help unless the patch I tried >> previously is applied ? >> >> diff >> >> --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c >> index 1c38174b5f01..7b5b8ed018b0 100644 --- >> a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c @@ >> -193,7 +193,13 @@ static bool __init acpi_is_processor_usable(u32 >> lapic_flags)       if (lapic_flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED) >>           return true; >>   - if (acpi_support_online_capable && (lapic_flags & >> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE)) + /* + * Prior to MADT.revision 5, the >> presence of the Local x2/APIC + * structure _implicitly_ noted a >> possible hotpluggable cpu. + * Starting with MADT.revision 5, the >> Online Capable bit + * _explicitly_ indicates a hotpluggable cpu. + >> */ + if (!acpi_support_online_capable || (lapic_flags & >> ACPI_MADT_ONLINE_CAPABLE))           return true; >>         return false; >> -- >> > > You mean specifically this change: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230327191026.3454-2-eric.devolder@oracle.com/ > > > Yes; I suppose that still makes sense. > Yes, that's the one. But the fact that  that one worked own its own implies that my system never had the flag set in the first place? David