[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4E427D.9090207@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 14:00:29 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"ananth@...ibm.com" <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 5/5] x86: use dmi check to treat disabled cpus as
hotplug cpus.
On 01/13/2010 01:46 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> so you want to treat those disabled cpus in the those system as hotplug cpus or not?
>
> Why not? It's not that a hotplug cpu is particularly expensive.
> It's just a bunch of memory and not even very much of it.
>
> White and blacklists just to save a small amount of memory
> seem like a bad idea.
>
There are configurations in which percpu memory is in the megabytes.
This is exactly why we need high water mark allocation of percpu memory:
for configurations where there are possible hotpluggable CPU sockets
(which may be virtual, and a lot larger number than necessary) we
shouldn't need to allocate memory for a processor which has never been
added and is net unlikely to ever be added. The only alternative is to
go to great length to keep the
(percpu memory) x (possible cpus - actual cpus) product as small as
possible, which is shortchanging the utility of the percpu memory system.
-hpa
--
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