Re: [discuss] Re: 2.6.13-rc2 with dual way dual core ck804 MB

[yhlu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>]

Yes, I mean more aggressive

static void __init smp_init(void)
{
        unsigned int i;

        /* FIXME: This should be done in userspace --RR */
        for_each_present_cpu(i) {
                if (num_online_cpus() >= max_cpus)
                        break;
                if (!cpu_online(i))
                        cpu_up(i);
        }


let cpu_up take one array instead of one int.

So  in do_boot_cpu() of smpboot.c
                /*
                 * Wait 5s total for a response
                 */
                for (timeout = 0; timeout < 50000; timeout++) {
                        if (cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map))
                                break;  /* It has booted */
                        udelay(100);
                }

could wait all be cpu_callin_map is set.

then we can spare more time.

YH


On 8/10/05, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:23:31PM -0700, yhlu wrote:
> > I wonder if you can make the bsp can start the APs callin in the same
> > time, and make it asynchronous, So you make spare 2s or more.
> 
> The setting of cpu_callin_map in the AP could be moved earlier yes.
> But it's not entirely trivial because there are some races to consider.
> 
> And the 1s quiet period on the AP could be probably also reduced
> on modern systems. I doubt it is needed on Xeons or Opterons.
> 
> -Andi
>
-
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/