[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150730152517.GE27280@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:25:17 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
josh@...htriplett.org, tglx@...utronix.de, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/12] rcu: Panic if RCU tree can not
accommodate all CPUs
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 02:28:35PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:30:53PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > + if (n > rcu_capacity[MAX_RCU_LVLS])
> > + panic("rcu_init_geometry: rcu_capacity[] is too small");
>
> How can this ever happen? We _know_ NR_CPUS at compile time, there's no
> way we can get more CPUs than that -- even if the hardware has more,
> we'll stop enumerating.
You can make this happen by building with CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT=2 and
CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2, then running on a system with more than 16 CPUs.
The kernel boot parameter rcutree.rcu_fanout_leaf=2 can be substituted for
CONFIG_RCU_FANOUT_LEAF=2, hence the need for a runtime test. I do this
sort of thing for my rcutorture testing in order to test a four-level
rcu_node tree with only 16 CPUs.
Thanx, Paul
--
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