Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756096AbYHKSrK (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:47:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751918AbYHKSqz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:46:55 -0400 Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.251]:33862 "EHLO wolverine02.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751211AbYHKSqz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Aug 2008 14:46:55 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5200,2160,5358"; a="5317170" Message-ID: <48A08920.5040208@qualcomm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:46:56 -0700 From: Max Krasnyansky User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com, jeff.chua.linux@gmail.com, Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [PATCH] Resurect proper handling of maxcpus= kernel option References: <1218052854-5020-1-git-send-email-Krasnyansky@qualcomm.com> <20080811181642.GS4524@elte.hu> <48A084C8.6050204@qualcomm.com> <20080811183814.GA12788@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080811183814.GA12788@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1534 Lines: 36 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Max Krasnyansky wrote: > >>> This will need some test time on 32-bit as that is where this >>> represents a material change. ( albeit what matters most is the >>> maxcpus=1 distinction - and for that nosmp can be used as well to >>> turn off multi-cpu support altogether. So we could do this in >>> v2.6.27 as well. ) >> So far we got a couple of reports that it works as expected on 32 >> (both laptop and server/desktop). > > Yes, but the usecase i'm worried about is when say maxcpus=1 was used to > _prevent_ an SMP bootup - because the system would not work otherwise. > > i guess we want to tickle those systems anyway as that case is not > supposed to happen (and it can always be totally disabled via nosmp or > noapic). > > So i'm not against your fix/change per se, i just wanted to highlight > that it has some impact on existing uses of maxcpus that is outside of > your cpu-hotplug usecase. I see what you mean. I think it's fairly safe though since we do not actually do much for the cpus that are not going to be brought online. Mainly just setting cpu_*_map and initializing per cpu areas. If something is broken in there we'd probably want to fix that asap anyway. And like you said nosmp does the job too. Max -- 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/