[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110109093926.GB542@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 10:39:26 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, apic: Do not increment disabled_cpus from
generic_processor_info.
* Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com> wrote:
> disabled_cpus has been incremented from the call path of
> generic_processor_info (i.e from acpi_register_lapic and
> MP_processor_info) when a perticular cpu is not enabled. So, we can
> remove the redundant increment of disabled_cpus from
> generic_processor_info.
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> index ce65d44..2499664 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -1943,7 +1943,6 @@ void __cpuinit generic_processor_info(int
> apicid, int version)
> "ACPI: NR_CPUS/possible_cpus limit of %i reached."
> " Processor %d/0x%x ignored.\n", max, thiscpu, apicid);
>
> - disabled_cpus++;
> return;
Hm, what effects does this have in practice? smpboot.c uses disabled_cpus as a value
to calculate limits - why has this bug not caused some misbehavior somewhere? (or if
it has caused misbehavior, what is that?)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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