Dave Anderson wrote:
 Dave Anderson wrote:
>
> Sachin,
>
> This may require help from the IBM ppc64 people out there,
> but it appears that the issue at hand has something to do
> with the uniprocessor aspect.
>
> Your vmlinux is an SMP kernel, but I'm guessing that the wrong
> choice of "runq" addresses is being made below:
>
>         if (symbol_exists("per_cpu__runqueues") &&
>             VALID_MEMBER(runqueue_idle)) {
>                 runqbuf = GETBUF(SIZE(runqueue));
>                 for (i = 0; i < nr_cpus; i++) {
>                        if ((kt->flags & SMP) && (kt->flags &
PER_CPU_OFF)) {
>                                 runq = symbol_value("per_cpu__runqueues")
+
>                                         kt->__per_cpu_offset[i];
>                         } else
>                                 runq = symbol_value("per_cpu__runqueues");
>
>                         readmem(runq, KVADDR, runqbuf,
>                                 SIZE(runqueue), "runqueues entry
(per_cpu)",
>                                 FAULT_ON_ERROR);
>                         tasklist[i] = ULONG(runqbuf + OFFSET(runqueue_idle));
>                         if (IS_KVADDR(tasklist[i]))
>                                 cnt++;
>
> I don't know what your "kt->flags" is showing at the
> decision point above, but if you hack the code and force
> it to select the "other" runq value, does it work OK?
>
> When CONFIG_SMP is not configured into the kernel, then
> the direct value of "per_cpu__runqueues" is used, whereas
> with SMP kernels, the appropriate offset needs to be
> applied.  At least that's how it works (has worked?) with
> the other architectures.
>
> Dave
 Looking at ppc64_paca_init(), it appears that this might be
 the problem if SMP is not set in kt->flags:
 static void
 ppc64_paca_init()
 {
         ...
         for (i = cpus = 0; i < nr_paca; i++) {
                 div_t val = div(i, BITS_FOR_LONG);
                 /*
                  * CPU online?
                  */
                 if (!(cpu_online_map[val.quot] & (0x1UL << val.rem)))
                         continue;
                 readmem(symbol_value("paca") + (i * SIZE(ppc64_paca)),
                         KVADDR, cpu_paca_buf, SIZE(ppc64_paca),
                         "paca entry", FAULT_ON_ERROR);
                 kt->__per_cpu_offset[i] = ULONG(cpu_paca_buf + data_offset);
                 kt->flags |= PER_CPU_OFF;
                 cpus++;
         }
         kt->cpus = cpus;
         if (kt->cpus > 1)
                 kt->flags |= SMP;
 }
 If SMP is not set coming into this function, and therefore won't
 get set above, then the wrong runq pointer would be selected later
 on get_idle_threads().
 Dave 
And then there's this code in kernel_init():
        if ((sp1 = symbol_search("__per_cpu_start")) &&
            (sp2 =  symbol_search("__per_cpu_end")) &&
            (sp1->type == 'A') && (sp2->type == 'A')
&&
            (sp2->value > sp1->value))
                kt->flags |= SMP|PER_CPU_OFF;
On a RHEL5 x86_64:
  crash> sym -q __per_cpu_ | grep -e start -e end
  ffffffff80603000 (A) __per_cpu_start
  ffffffff80607288 (A) __per_cpu_end
  crash>
On a RHEL5 x86:
  crash> sym -q __per_cpu | grep -e start -e end
  c03100a0 (A) __per_cpu_start
  c0315ae4 (A) __per_cpu_end
  crash>
But on your RHEL5 ppc64 kernel:
  # nm -Bn vmlinux | grep __per_cpu
  c000000000430100 D __per_cpu_start
  c0000000004356f0 D __per_cpu_end
  #
So if you remove the two "type == 'A'" qualifiers
from the if statement above, does it work OK?
Dave