Hi Jan,
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:34:34 +0000
"Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>> On 15.02.14 at 15:02, Petr Tesarik <ptesa...@suse.cz> wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > @@ -1226,9 +1226,6 @@ __init void prefill_possible_map(void)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> > if (setup_max_cpus)
> > possible += disabled_cpus;
> > -#else
> > - if (possible > i)
> > - possible = i;
> > #endif
> > } else
> > possible = setup_possible_cpus;
>
> In between here total_cpus is being set, which now will get a
> larger value if !HOTPLUG_CPU. Did you check that this has no
> unintended side effect? And even if you did, it would still feel
> more safe if you moved that line down after the capping point
> below.
This is a non-issue. total_cpus is initialized to
max(possible, num_processors + disabled_cpus).
possible is initialized to num_processors just before the conditional
block, and in !HOTPLUG case, it is not modified afterwards. So:
BEFORE THE CHANGE:
The value of possible was modified only if it was larger than
min(setup_max_cpus, 1). In turn, it could never be bigger than
num_processors + disabled_cpus.
Result: total_cpus = num_processors + disabled_cpus.
AFTER THE CHANGE:
The value of possible is not modified, i.e. it remains equal to
num_processors. disabled_cpus cannot be negative.
Result: total_cpus = num_processors + disabled_cpus
In fact, you can only increase the value of total_cpus by passing
a nr_possible parameter to the kernel which is greater than the
total number of CPUs detected through system tables (MPTABLES, ACPI,
SFI etc.).
> Similarly (but perhaps less important, albeit possibly slightly
> confusing) the NR_CPUS related warning could now get issued
> along with the warning below (when possible > nr_cpu_ids > i).
> Hence that may better be moved down too (or then in effect
> the if() block you modify below would get moved up). I realize
> that two warning instead of just one would also be possible
> without any change, so you're not really introducing some
> entirely new inconsistency here...
Well, if the user passes both nr_cpus and maxcpus parameters to the
kernel, I think it's fair to issue two warnings. But if everyone agrees
that only the maxcpus warning should be printed in that case, I can
send a version 2 of my patch.
Petr Tesarik
> > @@ -1246,7 +1243,7 @@ __init void prefill_possible_map(void)
> > if (!setup_max_cpus)
> > #endif
> > if (possible > i) {
> > - pr_warn("%d Processors exceeds max_cpus limit of %u\n",
> > + pr_warn("%d Processors exceeds maxcpus limit of %u\n",
> > possible, setup_max_cpus);
> > possible = i;
> > }
> > --
> > 1.8.4.5
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
