mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SMP busted on non-cpu-hotplug systems
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:53:49 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060325125349.GB6100@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060325041559.63011426.akpm@osdl.org>

On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 04:15:59AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > With your proposed change,
> 
> Which proposed change?  I proposed two.

The latter change.

> > 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?

The situation I described and you've quoted in the bulk of the above
quote.

> >  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?

What I'm referring to is the pre-CPU hotplug SMP initialisation
methodology and the post-CPU hotplug SMP initialisation methodology,
which I think is covered by "two different SMP initialisation
methodologies".

The two methodologies had entirely different ways of bringing up the
non-boot CPUs to the extent of using the cpu_*_map variables in different
ways.  However, now that I come to look again at x86, the situation does
appear to have improved somewhat over the last year or so since I last
looked (which was when I sorted out the ARM SMP support.)

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core

      reply	other threads:[~2006-03-25 12:54 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
2006-03-25 12:53       ` Russell King [this message]

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=20060325125349.GB6100@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®