Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread David Rientjes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > So the problem is that the counting of disabled but hotpluggable > > > CPUs is over-eager. > > > > In the kernel, yeah, and we don't distinguish between physically > > absent processors that have lapic entries and physically present but > >

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* David Rientjes wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > I don't think the "ACPI: LAPIC (... disabled)" lines are problematic, > > > they > > > are simply reporting the acpi processor id and apic id for processors > > > that > > > do not have their enabled flag set. The

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread David Rientjes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > I don't think the "ACPI: LAPIC (... disabled)" lines are problematic, they > > are simply reporting the acpi processor id and apic id for processors that > > do not have their enabled flag set. The acpi spec allows for these to > > exist without the

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Yinghai Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > No, this message is printed in prefill_possible_map() which > > _generates_ cpu_possible_map, so '8' is the number of bits in > > cpu_possible_map. > > > > So the problem is that the counting of disabled but

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > No, this message is printed in prefill_possible_map() which > _generates_ cpu_possible_map, so '8' is the number of bits in > cpu_possible_map. > > So the problem is that the counting of disabled but hotpluggable CPUs > is over-eager. Since

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* David Rientjes wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > it looks like this is because.. > > > > > > > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) > > > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x02] enabled) > > > > [0.00]

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* David Rientjes rient...@google.com wrote: On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Dave Jones wrote: it looks like this is because.. [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x02] enabled) [0.00] ACPI:

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Yinghai Lu
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: No, this message is printed in prefill_possible_map() which _generates_ cpu_possible_map, so '8' is the number of bits in cpu_possible_map. So the problem is that the counting of disabled but hotpluggable CPUs is

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Yinghai Lu ying...@kernel.org wrote: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org wrote: No, this message is printed in prefill_possible_map() which _generates_ cpu_possible_map, so '8' is the number of bits in cpu_possible_map. So the problem is that the

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread David Rientjes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: I don't think the ACPI: LAPIC (... disabled) lines are problematic, they are simply reporting the acpi processor id and apic id for processors that do not have their enabled flag set. The acpi spec allows for these to exist without the enabled

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* David Rientjes rient...@google.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: I don't think the ACPI: LAPIC (... disabled) lines are problematic, they are simply reporting the acpi processor id and apic id for processors that do not have their enabled flag set. The

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-26 Thread David Rientjes
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: So the problem is that the counting of disabled but hotpluggable CPUs is over-eager. In the kernel, yeah, and we don't distinguish between physically absent processors that have lapic entries and physically present but disabled processors.

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread David Rientjes
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Dave Jones wrote: > > > it looks like this is because.. > > > > > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) > > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x02] enabled) > > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x04]

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Dave Jones wrote: > > I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows > > during boot.. > > > > [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 > > > > it looks like this is because.. > > > > [0.00]

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread Dave Jones
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:41:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dave Jones wrote: > > > I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows > > during boot.. > > > > [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 > > > > it looks like this

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread Dave Jones
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 08:41:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote: I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows during boot.. [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 it looks like this

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Ingo Molnar wrote: * Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote: I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows during boot.. [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 it looks like this is because.. [0.00]

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-25 Thread David Rientjes
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Dave Jones wrote: it looks like this is because.. [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x02] enabled) [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x04] enabled) [

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-24 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Dave Jones wrote: > I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows > during boot.. > > [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 > > it looks like this is because.. > > [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) > [

Re: disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-24 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Dave Jones da...@redhat.com wrote: I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows during boot.. [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 it looks like this is because.. [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00]

disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-23 Thread Dave Jones
I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows during boot.. [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 it looks like this is because.. [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02]

disabled APICs being counted as processors ?

2014-01-23 Thread Dave Jones
I have a system with 4 cores (configured with CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4) that shows during boot.. [0.00] smpboot: 8 Processors exceeds NR_CPUS limit of 4 it looks like this is because.. [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) [0.00] ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02]