On Tuesday 20 November 2007 01:28:03 Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Rusty Russell ([email protected]) wrote:
> > I think it would be easier to just fast-path the num_online_cpus == 1
> > case, even if you want to keep this "update_early" interface.
>
> Nope, that could lead to problems. I call core_immediate_update()
> _very_ early, before boot_cpu_init() is called.
Ah, I see the problem. It would in fact be clearer for us to move
boot_cpu_init() up to just after smp_setup_processor_id() in start_kernel
anyway, not just for this code, but in general.
> Therefore,
> cpu_online_map is not set yet. I am not sure the benefit of using
> num_online_cpus outweights the added fragility wrt other boot process
> initializations.
I think it's still a win, though worth a comment that we always go via the
non-IPI path for the early boot case.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
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]
