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
> >
* 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
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
* 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
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
* 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]
* 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:
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
* 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
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
* 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
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.
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]
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]
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
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
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]
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)
[
* 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)
> [
* 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]
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]
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]
22 matches
Mail list logo