> > > x86-64 had the same problem, but we now require that you
> > > boot with additional_cpus=... for how many you want. Default is 0
> > > (used to be half available CPUs but that lead to confusion)
> >
> > So introducing the additional_cpus kernel parameter seems to be the way
> > to go (for XEN probably too). Even though it seems to be a bit odd if the
> > user specifies both maxcpus=... and additional_cpus=...
>
> With additional_cpus you don't need maxcpus. They are added together.
How does x86_64 manage to get 'additional_cpus' parsed early enough? As far
as I can see this is done when parse_args() in start_kernel() gets called,
but that's after you need the parameter in prefill_possible_map().
IMHO that should be an early_param and you would need to call
parse_early_param() from setup_arch(). But then again, maybe I got it all
wrong.
But the more interesting question is: what do you do if the command line
contains both additional_cpus and maxcpus. I was just trying to make some
sense of this, but the result is questionable.
I ended up with a cpu_possible_map that has 'present cpus' +
'additional_cpus' bits set. And in smp_prepare_cpus I make sure that
cpu_present_map has not more than max_cpus bits set.
At least that doesn't break the current semantics of the maxcpus parameter.
But we're still wasting memory, since it would make sense that the
cpu_possible_map shouldn't have more than max_cpus bits set.
Heiko
-
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]
