Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:58:53 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] lib/cpumask: add FORCE_NR_CPUS config option |
| |
Hi Yury,
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 6:19 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 05:15:41PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 5:01 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 05:44:09PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 07:35:09AM -0700, Yury Norov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 03:50:31PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > For those who choose FORCE_NR_CPUS, it's required to set NR_CPUS > > > > > to a value that matches to what's parsed from DT. > > ... > > > I haven't tried the patch from your other email yet, but I did try > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4 and CONFIG_FORCE_NR_CPUS=y on > > Icicle earlier today. > > > > There was no warning, as the number of CPUs did match, but the > > fourth CPU (cpu@4, i.e. the fifth core in DT) failed to come online: > > > > CPU3: failed to come online > > smp: Brought up 1 node, 3 CPUs > > > > BTW, it behaves the same with CONFIG_FORCE_NR_CPUS=n. > > Increasing CONFIG_NR_CPUS (before I used 8) makes the fourth > > CPU core come online again. > > The problem is seemingly unrelated to CONFIG_FORCE_NR_CPUS... > If so, we don't need ARCH_UNFORCE_NR_CPUS. Is that right? > > This all looks weird. RISCV hasn't an arch code to setup nr_cpu_ids, > and therefore should use generic setup_nr_cpu_ids(), which is: > > void __init setup_nr_cpu_ids(void) > { > set_nr_cpu_ids(find_last_bit(cpumask_bits(cpu_possible_mask), NR_CPUS) + 1); > } > > Where: > > static inline void set_nr_cpu_ids(unsigned int nr) > { > #if (NR_CPUS == 1) || defined(CONFIG_FORCE_NR_CPUS) > WARN_ON(nr != nr_cpu_ids); > #else > nr_cpu_ids = nr; > #endif > } > > > As you can see, at this point cpu_possible_mask is initialized based > on DT, and even if arch has non-dense cpu_possible_mask, the logic > should still be correct.
Quite possible this is just an issue with the RISC-V CPU sparse hart ID handling code. E.g. arm64 works fine with cpu@{0,1,2,3,100,101,102,103} and CONFIG_NR_CPUS=8. NR_CPUS in arch/riscv/Kconfig has always defaulted to at least 8, while all upstream DTS files describe only 4 Linux-capable CPU cores (+ 1 management core).
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |