Hi!
> I did the infrastructure, Anton did the bugfinding and PPC support,
> aka. the hard stuff. Other architectures need to implement
> __cpu_disable, __cpu_die and __cpu_up for them to work. Volunteers
> appreciated.
>
> This patch allows you to down & up CPUs as follows:
> # echo 0 > /proc/sys/cpu/0/online
> # echo 1 > /proc/sys/cpu/0/online
>
> The relatively trivial patch works as follows:
>
> 1) Implements synchronize_kernel() (thanks Andi Kleen for forwarding
> Paul McKenney's quiescent-state ideas) which waits for a schedule
> on all CPUs.
> 2) All CPU numbers are now physical: removes cpu_number_map,
> cpu_logical_map and smp_num_cpus.
> 3) Adds cpu_online(cpu) and cpu_num_online() macros.
> 4) Adds cpu_down() and cpu_up() calls, which call arch-specific
> __cpu_disable(cpu), __cpu_die(cpu) and __cpu_up(cpu).
> 5) Fixes schedule() to check allowed_cpus even if rescheduling same
> task.
This is not quite right:
@@ -1643,7 +1643,7 @@
printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: disabled on user
request.\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
- if ((smp_num_cpus > 1) && !power_off) {
+ if ((num_online_cpus() > 1) && !power_off) {
printk(KERN_NOTICE "apm: disabled - APM is not SMP
safe.\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
@@ -1697,7 +1697,7 @@
kernel_thread(apm, NULL, CLONE_FS | CLONE_FILES |
CLONE_SIGHAND | SIGCHLD);
- if (smp_num_cpus > 1) {
+ if (num_online_cpus() > 1) {
printk(KERN_NOTICE
"apm: disabled - APM is not SMP safe (power off
active).\n");
return 0;
I do not think it is safe to call APM when there is just CPU #5
running. smp_num_cpus in this context means "if we ever had more than
boot cpu".
Pavel
--
I'm [EMAIL PROTECTED] "In my country we have almost anarchy and I don't care."
Panos Katsaloulis describing me w.r.t. patents at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
