Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261611AbUK2Ayy (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:54:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261612AbUK2Ayy (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:54:54 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:21952 "EHLO ozlabs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261611AbUK2Ayw (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:54:52 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:50:33 +1100 From: David Gibson To: Rusty Russell Cc: Andrew Morton , Anton Blanchard , Paul Mackerras , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, lkml - Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PPC64] Tweaks to ppc64 cpu sysfs information Message-ID: <20041129005033.GB4155@zax> Mail-Followup-To: David Gibson , Rusty Russell , Andrew Morton , Anton Blanchard , Paul Mackerras , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, lkml - Kernel Mailing List References: <20041126035959.GK11370@zax> <1101679091.25347.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1101679091.25347.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1633 Lines: 33 On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 08:58:11AM +1100, Paul 'Rusty' Russell wrote: > On Fri, 2004-11-26 at 14:59 +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > Andrew, please apply: > > > > Currently the ppc64 sysfs code registers an entry for each possible > > cpu in sysfs, rather than just online cpus. That makes sense, since > > the sysfs entries are needed to control onlining of the cpus. > > However, this is done even if CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU is not set, or if it > > is not a hotplug capable (DLPAR) machine, which is a bit misleading. > > Secondly it also registers all the other sysfs entries (mostly > > performance monitoring controls) on all possible cpus, although they > > are quite meaningless on non-online cpus. > > Surely if !CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU, then online == possible? If not, it > should be. That would solve part of the problem. No, it's not. Yes, it probably should be. I thought about, but wasn't sure what other consequences that might have. I figured my patch would definitely fix some things, and there's actually less overlap with setting online==possible than you might think, partly because my patch will do the right thing if we ever have systems with some CPUs on/offlineable and others not. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist. NOT _the_ _other_ _way_ | _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson - 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/