Hi Gautham-
Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
>
> Looking at the topology_init() code, I observe that the meaning of
> the cpuX/ directory entries in /sys/devices/system/cpu/ might be
> different for different architectures.
>
> Looks like, in case of i386, ia64, m32, mips etc, the cpuX directory entries
> represent the "present cpus".
>
> However, in case of powerpc, s390 etc, the cpuX entries represent the
> "possible cpus".
>
> Wondering if there is any particular reason for this discrepancy.
I believe that the powerpc behavior was established before
cpu_present_map was introduced.
> I am not entirely surely if it's due cpu hotplug because
> both i386 and powerpc support it!
powerpc also supports processor add and remove (as opposed to
online/offline); i386 does not AFAIK. I think this may be a reason
for the difference.
> When I do a
> "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online" on a power box as root,
> I might get "-bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument"
> because cpuX might not be present!
>
> In case of lpar, cpu_present_map need not necessarily be equal to
> cpu_possible_map, so the above error is observable.
Working as intended. You have to add a cpu to the partition before
you can online it.
> Is this discrepency intentional ?
> Or is it due to the fact that in most cases,
> cpu_present_map == cpu_possible_map, so lets not bother about it :-?
I think it's the inevitable result when architectures are free to
invent their own versions of the same sysfs interface. But is it
really causing a problem in this case?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
