From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B15451007D1 for ; Fri, 6 May 2011 08:29:31 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] powerpc: respect how command line nr_cpus is set From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: References: <1304540257-19831-1-git-send-email-galak@kernel.crashing.org> <1304562302.2513.418.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 06 May 2011 08:29:23 +1000 Message-ID: <1304634563.2513.453.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > From Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt: > > nr_cpus= [SMP] Maximum number of processors that an SMP kernel > could support. nr_cpus=n : n >= 1 limits the kernel to > supporting 'n' processors. Later in runtime you can not > use hotplug cpu feature to put more cpu back to online. > just like you compile the kernel NR_CPUS=n > > Which makes me think we should have max_cpus be an absolute limit. Ok, looks like I've been confusing nr_cpus= vs. max_cpus= or something like that. I'll have a look at your patch later today. Cheers, Ben.