[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D299F8C.9070700@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:44:12 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>,
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.
On 01/09/2011 12:39 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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>
...
> 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
This disabled cpu may happen if nr_cpus early param specified and it's less than
nr_cpu_ids, but cpu might still be enabled in mp/acpi so we have to disable it.
And if we will not increment disabled_cpus this will lead the further report
about disabled cpu would refer to wrong cpu number. So I don't see why we
need to remove this disabled_cpus increment here.
Rakib is there something I miss?
--
Cyrill
--
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