Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled
From: Andi Kleen (ak_at_muc.de)
Date: 09/07/05
- Previous message: Bernd Petrovitsch: "Re: kbuild & C++"
- In reply to: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Next in thread: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Reply: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 7 Sep 2005 08:49:50 +0200 Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 08:49:50 +0200 To: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:56:17PM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> Hi Andi
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 06:48:21AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 02:33:26PM -0700, akpm@osdl.org wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>
> > >
> > > No need to enforce_max_cpus when hotplug code is enabled. This nukes out
> > > cpu_present_map and cpu_possible_map making it impossible to add new cpus in
> > > the system.
> >
> > I see the point, but the implementation is wrong. If anything
> > we shouldn't do it neither for the !HOTPLUG_CPU case.Why did
> > you not do it unconditionally?
> >
> > I would prefer to keep the special cases for hotplug to be
> > as narrow as possible.
>
> Link to earlier discussion below
>
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=112317327529855&w=2
>
> I had suggested that we remove it completely in our discussion but i didnt
> hear anything from you after that, so i thought that was acceptable.
Just because I don't follow up on everything doesn't necessarily
mean the patch is acceptable.
>
> You had suggested in that discussion that it would be better to add an
> option for startup. Iam opposed to adding any option, when we certainly know
I suggested to auto detect it based on ACPI information. I don't
think I ever wrote anything about an option.
If that is not possible it's better to always use the sequence mechanism.
> there are no users. Earlier based on your suggestion i added a startup
> option to choose ipi broadcast mode, which you promptly removed when you
> put physflat changes. I think its better to not add any option without
> real need. Do you agree?
Yes.
> Please reply if you want me to remove the !HOTPLUG case which is my
> preference as well, and maybe while the memory is fresh, we can stick
> with it this time when we are in the same page :-(
Yes, as I wrote earlier hotplug should be removed.
-Andi
P.S.: Don't bother sending me such "blame game" mails again. I will
just d them next time because they're a waste of time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Previous message: Bernd Petrovitsch: "Re: kbuild & C++"
- In reply to: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Next in thread: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Reply: Ashok Raj: "Re: [patch 09/14] x86_64: Don't call enforce_max_cpus when hotplug is enabled"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
