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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site