Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[Dou Liyang]

Hi David,

At 09/07/2016 05:23 AM, David Rientjes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote:


This is a code optimization.



Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness.


Yes, I see. I will improve it in next version.

Thanks,
Dou




If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.

Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
disabled_cpus.

Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 


Acked-by: David Rientjes 

Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[Dou Liyang]

Hi David,

At 09/07/2016 05:23 AM, David Rientjes wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote:


This is a code optimization.



Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness.


Yes, I see. I will improve it in next version.

Thanks,
Dou




If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.

Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
disabled_cpus.

Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 


Acked-by: David Rientjes 

Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote:

> This is a code optimization.
> 

Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness.

> If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
> it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
> disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
> been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.
> 
> Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
> it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
> disabled_cpus.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 

Acked-by: David Rientjes 

Re: [PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[David Rientjes]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Dou Liyang wrote:

> This is a code optimization.
> 

Not sure that it's optimization, it's just for correctness.

> If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
> it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
> disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
> been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.
> 
> Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
> it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
> disabled_cpus.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 

Acked-by: David Rientjes 

[PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[Dou Liyang]

This is a code optimization.

If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.

Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
disabled_cpus.

Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 
---
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
index 50c95af..f3e9b2d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
@@ -2093,7 +2093,6 @@ int generic_processor_info(int apicid, int version)
return -EINVAL;
}
 
-   num_processors++;
if (apicid == boot_cpu_physical_apicid) {
/*
 * x86_bios_cpu_apicid is required to have processors listed
@@ -2116,10 +2115,13 @@ int generic_processor_info(int apicid, int version)
 
pr_warning("APIC: Package limit reached. Processor %d/0x%x 
ignored.\n",
   thiscpu, apicid);
+
disabled_cpus++;
return -ENOSPC;
}
 
+   num_processors++;
+
/*
 * Validate version
 */
-- 
2.5.5

[PATCH] x86: Put the num_processors++ code in a more suitable position

[Dou Liyang]

This is a code optimization.

If checking the topology package map of apicid and cpu is failure,
it will stop generating the processor info for that apicid and the
disabled_cpus will plus one. However, the num-processors has already
been added one above. That may cause the number of processors incorrect.

Just put the num_processors++ code in the more suitable position.
it makes sure that the num-processors will not conflict with the
disabled_cpus.

Signed-off-by: Dou Liyang 
---
 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
index 50c95af..f3e9b2d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
@@ -2093,7 +2093,6 @@ int generic_processor_info(int apicid, int version)
return -EINVAL;
}
 
-   num_processors++;
if (apicid == boot_cpu_physical_apicid) {
/*
 * x86_bios_cpu_apicid is required to have processors listed
@@ -2116,10 +2115,13 @@ int generic_processor_info(int apicid, int version)
 
pr_warning("APIC: Package limit reached. Processor %d/0x%x 
ignored.\n",
   thiscpu, apicid);
+
disabled_cpus++;
return -ENOSPC;
}
 
+   num_processors++;
+
/*
 * Validate version
 */
-- 
2.5.5