On 2014-7-31 14:54, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:00:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * In ACPI mode, the cpu possible map was enumerated before SMP
>> + * initialization when MADT table was parsed, so we can get the
>> + * possible map here to initialize CPUs.
>> + */
>
> The DT smp init will warn if the kernel has been build with too low NR_CPUS.
> Does the ACPI core already warn, or did that go missing with this separate code
> path?
ACPI code will warn, it is in PATCH 07/19,
+ if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
+ pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
+ NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
>
>> +static void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + if (cpu_acpi_read_ops(cpu) != 0)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +void __init smp_init_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + if (acpi_disabled)
>> + of_smp_init_cpus();
>> + else
>> + acpi_smp_init_cpus();
>
> I'm liking these deeply split code paths less and less every time I see
> them. :(
>
> I would prefer to set up shared state in separate functions, but keep the
> control flow the same. Right now you're splitting it completely.
>
> I.e. split data setup between the two, but do the loop calling cpu_init()
> the same way. (Yes, that will require you to refactor the DT code path
> a bit too...)
OK, I will dive into the code and figure out if I can fix that as you
suggested, thanks for your comments :)
Best Regards
Hanjun
--
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
