[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B7D782F.20102@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:26:07 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 34/35] x86: use num_processors for possible cpus
On 02/17/2010 06:38 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>
>> I'm confused by this one. This would seem to mean that unless you're
>> specifying possible_cpus= then you are not treating anything as
>> hotpluggable.
>>
>> This is clearly wrong, and it would appear to go the wrong direction in
>> terms of what is safe.
>>
>> What am I missing here?
>
> per_cpu setup will allocate some mem for every cpu according to possible cpus.
>
Yes, and I have repeatedly requested that we allocate the memory on the
first up of a disabled CPU rather than eagerly, but in *most*
configurations the amount is relatively small.
> no spec says that we should disable cpus entries in MADT as hotplug cpus.
Reality seems to, though. Consider the bug report that led to patch
681ee44d40d7c93b42118320e4620d07d8704fd6 for example.
> also how many system that support hotplug cpus there?
In terms of physical machines, not all that many; however, it is getting
common to use CPU hotplug for virtual environments so they can be
dynamically scaled.
-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