Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 15:18 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > 2. Just below that we have smp_cpus_done(setup_max_cpus); and this > > translates > > to native_smp_cpus_done() under x86, which calls impress_friends(). > > And that means, the bogosum calculation and the total activated processor >

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On 2/14/2012 11:57 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: >> In addition to this, the reality is that the whole "bring cpus up" >> sequence needs to be changed; the current one is very messy and requires >> the hotplug lock for the whole bring up of each individual cpu... which >> is a very unfortunate desig

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 01:27 +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > [Small note, it appears as if the last 2 of your replies to this > thread > didn't reach LKML.] because he used html mail, LKML drops those.. IIRC you can tell K-9 not to use html cruft, but then I stopped trying to pretend you can ema

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
[Small note, it appears as if the last 2 of your replies to this thread didn't reach LKML.] On 02/14/2012 08:01 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > one coments; will comment more when I get to work > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat > > 7. And whichever code between smp_init() an

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 02/14/2012 03:18 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 02/14/2012 01:47 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > >> On 01/31/2012 09:54 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> >>> From ee65be59057c920042747d46dc174c5a5a56c744 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Arjan van de Ven >>> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:44:51 -080

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Arjan van de Ven
Its more than acpi ... machine checks can do it too etc -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Peter Zijlstra wrote: On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 06:31 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > frankly, such code HAS to worry about cpus going online and offline > even today;

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 06:31 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > frankly, such code HAS to worry about cpus going online and offline > even today; the firmware, at least on X86, can start taking cores > offline/online once ACPI is initialized (as controlled by a data > center manager from outsid

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Arjan van de Ven
one coments; will comment more when I get to work On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat 7. And whichever code between smp_init() and async_synchronize_full() didn't > > care about CPU hotplug till today but depended on all cpus being online > must > suddenly start worrying about CPU H

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 02/14/2012 01:47 PM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 01/31/2012 09:54 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> From ee65be59057c920042747d46dc174c5a5a56c744 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Arjan van de Ven >> Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:44:51 -0800 >> Subject: [PATCH] smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchr

Re: smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously

2012-02-14 Thread Srivatsa S. Bhat
On 01/31/2012 09:54 PM, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > From ee65be59057c920042747d46dc174c5a5a56c744 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Arjan van de Ven > Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:44:51 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH] smp: Start up non-boot CPUs asynchronously > > The starting of the "not first" CPUs actuall