[lkml]   [2007]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: /sys/devices/system/cpu/*: Present cpus or Possible cpus
Hi Gautham-

Gautham R Shenoy wrote:
> Looking at the topology_init() code, I observe that the meaning of
> the cpuX/ directory entries in /sys/devices/system/cpu/ might be
> different for different architectures.
> Looks like, in case of i386, ia64, m32, mips etc, the cpuX directory entries
> represent the "present cpus".
> However, in case of powerpc, s390 etc, the cpuX entries represent the
> "possible cpus".
> Wondering if there is any particular reason for this discrepancy.

I believe that the powerpc behavior was established before
cpu_present_map was introduced.

> I am not entirely surely if it's due cpu hotplug because
> both i386 and powerpc support it!

powerpc also supports processor add and remove (as opposed to
online/offline); i386 does not AFAIK. I think this may be a reason
for the difference.

> When I do a
> "echo 1 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuX/online" on a power box as root,
> I might get "-bash: echo: write error: Invalid argument"
> because cpuX might not be present!
> In case of lpar, cpu_present_map need not necessarily be equal to
> cpu_possible_map, so the above error is observable.

Working as intended. You have to add a cpu to the partition before
you can online it.

> Is this discrepency intentional ?
> Or is it due to the fact that in most cases,
> cpu_present_map == cpu_possible_map, so lets not bother about it :-?

I think it's the inevitable result when architectures are free to
invent their own versions of the same sysfs interface. But is it
really causing a problem in this case?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-05-02 18:37    [W:0.037 / U:1.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site