From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SMP busted on non-cpu-hotplug systems
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:15:59 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060325041559.63011426.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060325120546.GA6100@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 03:47:44AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just noticed this on sparc64, as I lost 31 cpus on my
> > > Niagara box due to it :)
> > >
> > > boot_cpu_init() sets the boot processor ID in cpu_present_map.
> > >
> > > But fixup_cpu_present_map() will only populate the cpu_present_map if
> > > it is empty, which it won't be because of what boot_cpu_init() just
> > > did.
> >
> > oops. I guess most architectures set cpu_present_map while bringing up the
> > APs.
> >
> > I think it'd be cleanest to require that the arch do that -
> > fixup_cpu_present_map() looks like a bit of a hack.
> >
> > I guess if we want to perpetuate fixup_cpu_present_map() then we should
> > teach it to ignore the boot cpu. (cpus_weight(&cpu_present_map) == 1)
> > would do that.
>
> At setup_arch() time, we initialise cpu_possible_map to contain the CPUs
> the system might have.
OK.
> We then call smp_prepare_boot_cpu() which marks the boot cpu in both
> cpu_present_map and cpu_online_map.
OK.
> Eventually, we call smp_prepare_cpus(), where an architecture may
> populate cpu_present_map to indicate which cpus are actually present,
> and following this we call fixup_cpu_present_map().
OK.
> With your proposed change,
Which proposed change? I proposed two.
> if a SMP system with has 4 possible CPUs
> was passed maxcpus=1, cpu_possible_map may well have 4 CPUs, and
> cpu_present_map will only contain the one. However, due to the
> fixup_cpu_present_map(), it will say "oh only one CPU, we need to
> populate the others" and so you'd actually try to boot all 4.
The change we appear to be going with is to remove fixup_cpu_present_map()
which appears to address this.
> So no, this doesn't work.
What doesn't work?
> Isn't it about time the pre-CPU hotplug SMP
> stuff was updated, rather than trying to messily support two different
> SMP initialisation methodologies in generic code with band aid plasters
> all over?
What two methodologies? arch-doing-it and fixup_cpu_present_map() doing it?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-25 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-25 10:42 David S. Miller
2006-03-25 11:47 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-25 11:59 ` David S. Miller
2006-03-25 12:06 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-25 12:05 ` Russell King
2006-03-25 12:06 ` David S. Miller
2006-03-25 12:15 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-03-25 12:53 ` Russell King
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060325041559.63011426.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®