On Thu, Jun 15 2023 at 17:46, Laurent Dufour wrote: > > - if (ctrlval != cpu_smt_control) { > + orig_threads = cpu_smt_num_threads; > + cpu_smt_num_threads = num_threads; > + > + if (num_threads > orig_threads) { > + ret = cpuhp_smt_enable(); > + } else if (num_threads < orig_threads) { > + ret = cpuhp_smt_disable(ctrlval); > + } else if (ctrlval != cpu_smt_control) { > switch (ctrlval) { > case CPU_SMT_ENABLED: > ret = cpuhp_smt_enable(); This switch() is still as pointless as in the previous version. OFF -> ON, ON -> OFF, ON -> FORCE_OFF are covered by the num_threads comparisons. So the only case where (ctrlval != cpu_smt_control) is relevant is the OFF -> FORCE_OFF transition because in that case the number of threads is not changing. force_off = ctrlval != cpu_smt_control && ctrval == CPU_SMT_FORCE_DISABLED; if (num_threads > orig_threads) ret = cpuhp_smt_enable(); else if (num_threads < orig_threads || force_off) ret = cpuhp_smt_disable(ctrlval); Should just work, no? Thanks, tglx