On Tuesday, June 26, 2012 12:42:14 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 06/26/2012 11:58 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > On 06/26/2012 03:11 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 06/26/2012 11:29 AM, Thomas Renninger wrote: ... > >> > >> In this case, let's remove the intel_idle_cpu_init stuff in > >> acpi_cpu_soft_notify, no ? > >> > > > > Why? And how would that help? The intel_idle_cpu_init() call is essential if intel_idle > > driver is being used instead of acpi idle. > > AFAIU, this code is not called after onlining a cpu greater than maxcpus > and Thomas thinks that system with cpu hotplug at runtime are not sold. Not 100% sure. Also the code paths to handle real CPU hotplug existed already (via ACPI notify on the processor object) and did work. I only fixed to correctly initialize idle states. > The problem I see with this code is acpi and intel-idle are tied > together now. I would like to break this dependency and use the notifier > to handle the cpu hotplug directly in intel-idle. > > It is hard to test my patch as there is not such system and maxcpus is > not correctly handled here. I can use your patch to test my patch but > anyway ... I am just asking if that would make sense to remove this > portion of code instead :) > > If we want to keep this code untouched, I can try my patch and maybe > Thomas will agreed to test it also on a cpu-online-runtime-system if he > has one. But not this patch, we agreed it's not worth to look at: "System exceeding maxcpus=x via cpu soft onlining does not initialize power management on exceeding cores", right? If you have a patch touching this, please point me to it. I can have a look at it and if really necessary give it a test. Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
