WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux: don't bring up CPUs that can never be use

To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux: don't bring up CPUs that can never be used
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:05:58 +0200
Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 07:06:30 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C1063F92.D57%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <44E09586.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <C1063F92.D57%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> I'm a little bit wary of the second hunk. Although it's probably
okay,
>> is it
>>> actually required? Looks like the first hunk is what fixes the
issue.
>> 
>> It's probably not strictly required, but sill better than iterating
>> over NR_CPUS, as
>> that is what mainline is in the process of phasing out. The only
>> difference I can
>> see to the results of the original code is that for cpu 0 the two
array
>> members
>> now also get (re-)initialized here - but the value stored should be
the
>> same as
>> may have been stored earlier.
>
>If it's true that those maps only get interrogated for CPUs in the
>cpu_online_map, could we remove that loop altogether? We initialise
the map
>entries for CPUs as they're brought online in __cpu_up(): should that
>suffice?

I think considering cpu_possible_map/cpu_present_map would be safer
here,
which is why I made the loop run over cpu_present_map. __cpu_up
wouldn't
be sufficient for setting this up then. I am, however, not sure whether
these
maps ever get accessed for non-online CPUs, so your suggestion might
well
work.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel