From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754761AbbI1B7A (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:59:00 -0400
Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([59.151.112.132]:38829 "EHLO
	heian.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752864AbbI1B66 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 27 Sep 2015 21:58:58 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,520,1432569600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="101152465"
Message-ID: <56089E7A.7040400@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 09:57:14 +0800
From: Tang Chen <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
CC: <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>, <mika.j.penttila@gmail.com>,
        <mingo@redhat.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>, <yasu.isimatu@gmail.com>,
        <isimatu.yasuaki@jp.fujitsu.com>, <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
        <izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com>, <gongzhaogang@inspur.com>,
        <qiaonuohan@cn.fujitsu.com>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] x86, acpi, cpu-hotplug: Introduce apicid_to_cpuid[]
 array to store persistent cpuid <-> apicid mapping.
References: <1441859269-25831-1-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <1441859269-25831-6-git-send-email-tangchen@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150910195532.GK8114@mtj.duckdns.org> <56066AC9.6020703@cn.fujitsu.com> <20150926175622.GC3572@htj.duckdns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150926175622.GC3572@htj.duckdns.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


On 09/27/2015 01:56 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 05:52:09PM +0800, Tang Chen wrote:
>>>> +static int allocate_logical_cpuid(int apicid)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * cpuid <-> apicid mapping is persistent, so when a cpu is up,
>>>> +	 * check if the kernel has allocated a cpuid for it.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	for (i = 0; i < max_logical_cpuid; i++) {
>>>> +		if (cpuid_to_apicid[i] == apicid)
>>>> +			return i;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* Allocate a new cpuid. */
>>>> +	if (max_logical_cpuid >= nr_cpu_ids) {
>>>> +		WARN_ONCE(1, "Only %d processors supported."
>>>> +			     "Processor %d/0x%x and the rest are ignored.\n",
>>>> +			     nr_cpu_ids - 1, max_logical_cpuid, apicid);
>>>> +		return -1;
>>>> +	}
>>> So, the original code didn't have this failure mode, why is this
>>> different for the new code?
>> It is not different. Since max_logical_cpuid is new, this is ensure it won't
>> go beyond NR_CPUS.
> If the above condition can happen, the original code should have had a
> similar check as above, right?  Sure, max_logical_cpuid is a new thing
> but that doesn't seem to change whether the above condition can happen
> or not, no?

Right, indeed. It is in

generic_processor_info()
|--> if (num_processors >= nr_cpu_ids)

Will remove my new added check.

Thanks.

>
> Thanks.
>