[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1001121254160.17145@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:57:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"ananth@...ibm.com" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] use nr_cpus= to set nr_cpu_ids early
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> Trouble is that NR_CPUS is used all over the place. If nr_cpu_ids <
> NR_CPUS at boot then there is a danger of for loops to NR_CPUS going out
> of bounds.
>
> CONFIG_NR_CPUS is used for various bitmaps so that seems to be okay.
>
> drivers/acpi/numa.c:acpi_numa_init probably should use nr_cpu_ids
> instead now.
>
> There is an octeon driver in staging that has some issues with NR_CPUS
> as well.
I suspect that this is the real reason for the current behavior of
'maxcpus=', and that if all of those issues get fixed we could probably
make maxcpus do what Yinghai's new 'nr_cpus=' does.
So in a perfect world, CONFIG_NR_CPUS's would never really be used, except
for some fundamental static allocations/limits that are too painful to try
to make dynamic.
I doubt that anybody really _cares_ about the "you can add them later"
behavior of the current maxcpus thing, and I suspect that the nr_cpus
semantics is what people generally would have expected.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists