From: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
To: Nathan Lynch <ntl@pobox.com>
Cc: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
ashok.raj@intel.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: /sys/devices/system/cpu/*: Present cpus or Possible cpus
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 00:22:35 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070502185235.GA6859@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070502163757.GF30688@localdomain>
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:37:57AM -0500, Nathan Lynch wrote:
> Hi Gautham-
>
> I believe that the powerpc behavior was established before
> cpu_present_map was introduced.
Ok. I guess the same is the reason with a few other architectures like
s390.
>
>
> > 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.
>
Well, ACPI seems to be supporting it.
acpi_processor_hotadd_init() in drivers/acpi/processor_core.c appears
to be equivalent to pSeries_add_processor(), except that the former
creates the sysfs entries on a hot add, while the later just updates
the cpu_present map.
>
> > 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?
>
No, it is not causing any problems :-)
I was just overwhelmed to see cpu0 to cpu77 in the sysfs entries on the
lpar which I was using. Looking at the kernel code, I figured out that
the MAX_CPUS for that lpar was 39 and each virtual cpu was probably
running 2 threads. That explained the 78 sysfs entries.
Thanks for the explaination anyway.
Regards
gautham.
--
Gautham R Shenoy
Linux Technology Center
IBM India.
"Freedom comes with a price tag of responsibility, which is still a bargain,
because Freedom is priceless!"
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-02 18:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-02 11:00 /sys/devices/system/cpu/*: Present cpus or Possible cpus Gautham R Shenoy
2007-05-02 16:37 ` Nathan Lynch
2007-05-02 18:52 ` Gautham R Shenoy [this message]
2007-05-03 13:42 ` Heiko Carstens
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070502185235.GA6859@in.ibm.com \
--to=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ntl@pobox.com \
--cc=vatsa@in.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox