[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09100858-3be2-a9f2-e0af-b6cad67d760b@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2023 13:11:43 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Peter Keresztes Schmidt <peter@...esztesschmidt.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch V3 26/60] x86/apic/32: Decrapify the def_bigsmp mechanism
On 8/1/23 03:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
...
> -void __init default_setup_apic_routing(void)
> +void __init x86_32_probe_bigsmp_early(void)
> {
> - int version = boot_cpu_apic_version;
> + if (nr_cpu_ids <= 8 || xen_pv_domain())
> + return;
...
> +void __init default_setup_apic_routing(void)
> +{
> + if (nr_cpu_ids >= 8 && !xen_pv_domain())
> + apic_bigsmp_force();
I thought bigsmp didn't come into play until 9 or more CPUs. Won't this
do apic_bigsmp_force() at nr_cpu_ids==8?
Should this be:
if (nr_cpu_ids > 8 && !xen_pv_domain())
apic_bigsmp_force();
?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists