[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D2A00C2.904@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 21:38:58 +0300
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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 07:57 PM, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
>
> If I'm not wrong, smpboot.c tries to get the possible cpu map by
> calculating disabled_cpus and num_processors. When we pass nr_cpus=n,
> which is less than no. of CPUs available, we can't put more CPUs
> online. So, no of cpu we detect at startup is okay. Or am I missing
> anything?
>
> thanks,
> rakib
>
When nr_cpus=n passed from command line and there is N > n physical cpu
present we *still* have to increment disabled_cpus in generic_processor_info
because:
1) We're priting out the number of cpu which is disabled
2) total_cpus become inconsistent
and while (1) is not that important, total_cpus _is_ important (it
is used to print out offlined cpus).
So I still fail to see why we need to drop the former increment in
first place.
--
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