From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7BD613B2BB for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2024 18:53:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722451995; cv=none; b=elhmG+Dvu4ytogeBTxhuVWj/7pk8aqWkX98T39JetQqB6k1ZOJ/Qcu+Zmz91SUCGFXgI7g6cZtT5gGBrIhFoB9aIwU50bfxIW3j04FZmJQTZ1YmnQdudOMi1K+H6Dc4l6iqY6YXx0bOdDXV5+pjHEdpg1WmhGLJsOGakPrspwiM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1722451995; c=relaxed/simple; bh=UUi5/J2ap4WNpFaqtmfkjaBR6xBlhFPX1Fgv6gjnn7E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JwYrY4Cnj8qLaOGxTArQ45o+lR56nl8jxoP11VUFhX0Ixy6soDc1xsjdiZGVMcY2nJf2Ba827Qwt20hhlvnWHiV9pFM2001eOFfaNf//AiJzKxvZ4E4OMU4MdmlQoCrQVoj0Plizd1MY1PJpSU1MTkGdf8OUu9FgUV7pk1X0g9I= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=nj/a2JY7; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=CfJ06FYr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="nj/a2JY7"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="CfJ06FYr" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1722451991; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/3aMem7ZER8M4kJsRCB2muNUJiSoszp3BgGAcEL0vVY=; b=nj/a2JY7znXXhTX8mRM4yHNVeNi50SwafccRZlHINGCLHFY7wu5FE9zL3nwIRNLm2BpNHs 8z5NmJOaRBrzuF/ITE9OYAMv6SlYeDYhN48RW9l1Tin/X1N5d83bWehXz6j95e2WS/IRi9 m+UydU8rodVeCT71wAo6pMDADZiCLXGND8xfBF5hoYTPxycTO7DABWxZjzWwv5d+Bc2BjW zJef3gblC9DcmJ0bIyO5h2w5yjUBikzKUJorgMOPvbi73BVy8B2UR808FtMqscEGdsG8uq uoEIyJjVvFqqinbr08giYSOnlIc5CJ2pwjrgsKWlBBpZ3/r4OuPkBesiFW3a2g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1722451991; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/3aMem7ZER8M4kJsRCB2muNUJiSoszp3BgGAcEL0vVY=; b=CfJ06FYrJoMT7+EKbU1Xmp6RiaTFuKy9J/rFjH4dN5HziiZDQCFAh5axgx4JQ6DW6wWJf/ uX4SbG/SPawEJwBw== To: Feng Tang , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , "H . Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra , x86@kernel.org, paulmck@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com, Waiman Long , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Feng Tang , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/tsc: Use topology_max_packages() to get package number In-Reply-To: <20240729021202.180955-1-feng.tang@intel.com> References: <20240729021202.180955-1-feng.tang@intel.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 20:53:11 +0200 Message-ID: <878qxh5r6w.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Mon, Jul 29 2024 at 10:12, Feng Tang wrote: > pr_info("Allowing %u present CPUs plus %u hotplug CPUs\n", assigned, disabled); > - if (topo_info.nr_rejected_cpus) > + if (topo_info.nr_rejected_cpus) { > pr_info("Rejected CPUs %u\n", topo_info.nr_rejected_cpus); > + if (__max_logical_packages <= 4) > + pr_info("TSC might be buggered due to the rejected CPUs\n"); I'm not really convinced of the value of this message. People who limit their CPUs on the command line or at compile time really should know what they are doing. The kernel already tells that there are rejected CPUs and that extra TSC info is just annoying and confusing noise for people who run that and have a perfectly working TSC on a single/dual/quad socket machine. I just drop that noise. Thanks, tglx