Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753234AbaBQNkM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:40:12 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:42188 "EHLO out3-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752395AbaBQNkK (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:40:10 -0500 X-Sasl-enc: zNwaQwbjk7aipH1p0FXLb/mO8zv8s9JyYXrkn+71X6tw 1392644408 Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 10:40:07 -0300 From: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh To: Petr Tesarik Cc: Jan Beulich , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Issue a warning if number of present CPUs > maxcpus and CONFIG_HOTPLUG=n Message-ID: <20140217134006.GA14786@khazad-dum.debian.net> References: <20140215150223.63bb52fb@hananiah.suse.cz> <5301D7AA020000780011CBE9@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20140217110402.7e4fc211@hananiah.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140217110402.7e4fc211@hananiah.suse.cz> X-GPG-Fingerprint1: 4096R/39CB4807 C467 A717 507B BAFE D3C1 6092 0BD9 E811 39CB 4807 X-GPG-Fingerprint2: 1024D/1CDB0FE3 5422 5C61 F6B7 06FB 7E04 3738 EE25 DE3F 1CDB 0FE3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Petr Tesarik wrote: > 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. Please remember that the market is full of motherboards with the extremely annoying behaviour of declaring ACPI objects for CPU cores that will never be available. This includes a large number of workstation and server boards at the very least, from at least one rather large vendor. As far as I know, we still don't have a way to realiably detect this and get rid of the ghost processors which will *NEVER* become online. Setting maxcpus or nr_cpus manually is the current way to avoid wasting runtime resources because of phantom cores that will never become reality. So, when you fix the bug that always supress the warnings, you will at the same time cause a regression on those boxes, which will now print undesired warnings. If the user has manually set nr_cpus or maxcpus, maybe it would be best to not print any warnings or alternatively to downgrade them to debug level? -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- 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/