lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [discuss] Re: 2.6.13-rc2 with dual way dual core ck804 MB
    Yes, I mean more aggressive

    static void __init smp_init(void)
    {
    unsigned int i;

    /* FIXME: This should be done in userspace --RR */
    for_each_present_cpu(i) {
    if (num_online_cpus() >= max_cpus)
    break;
    if (!cpu_online(i))
    cpu_up(i);
    }


    let cpu_up take one array instead of one int.

    So in do_boot_cpu() of smpboot.c
    /*
    * Wait 5s total for a response
    */
    for (timeout = 0; timeout < 50000; timeout++) {
    if (cpu_isset(cpu, cpu_callin_map))
    break; /* It has booted */
    udelay(100);
    }

    could wait all be cpu_callin_map is set.

    then we can spare more time.

    YH


    On 8/10/05, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
    > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:23:31PM -0700, yhlu wrote:
    > > I wonder if you can make the bsp can start the APs callin in the same
    > > time, and make it asynchronous, So you make spare 2s or more.
    >
    > The setting of cpu_callin_map in the AP could be moved earlier yes.
    > But it's not entirely trivial because there are some races to consider.
    >
    > And the 1s quiet period on the AP could be probably also reduced
    > on modern systems. I doubt it is needed on Xeons or Opterons.
    >
    > -Andi
    >
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-08-11 02:52    [W:0.022 / U:29.392 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site