Re: [Crash-utility] poisoned per_cpu data not handled on ppc64

Haren Myneni wrote: crash-utility-bounces(a)redhat.com wrote on 03/09/2006 12:24:26 PM: > Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Sorry -- I see that NR_CPUS is 128 for ppc64 in crash... > > > > But the question remains, do you want to absolutely depend > > upon that always being the case in the kernel? > > > > Dave > > Actually, looking again at the paca code, it doesn't seem that > it is dependent upon the kernel NR_CPUS value. Dave, Since, we are iterating on nr_paca, though that it may not be an issue even if the kernel changed NR_CPUS to < 128. The only issue is we are reading NR_CPUS/8 for cpu_online_map - not using the remaining

Probably, it will be more clear if you the cpu_online_map size is based on nr_paca. Like moving the following line after calculated nr_paca: + readmem(symbol_value("cpu_online_map"), KVADDR,

+ nr_paca/8, "cpu_online_map", FAULT_ON_ERROR); + Can I go ahead and change it? - drawback of this approach is if the NR_CPUS in the kernel is greater than 128. Well, if NR_CPUS goes above 128 in the kernel, then crash will fail in kernel_init() with: if (kt->cpus > NR_CPUS) { error(WARNING, "calculated number of cpus (%d) greater than compiled-in NR_CPUS (%d)\n", kt->cpus, NR_CPUS); error(FATAL, "recompile crash with larger NR_CPUS\n"); } so that's not really a problem.

or do you prefer actual allocating the online_map based on nr_paca? I will make changes based on your suggestions. I don't care either way -- I just want you guys to be happy. ;-) So just tell me how you want it, i.e., either keep the patch as is, or send an updated one. Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility