[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: MCE, AMD: Hide smp-only code around CONFIG_SMP
On 9 February 2012 04:06, Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
> * Borislav Petkov <> wrote:
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/smp.h
>> @@ -33,8 +33,15 @@ static inline bool cpu_has_ht_siblings(void)
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_sibling_map);
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_core_map);
>> -/* cpus sharing the last level cache: */
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>> +/* CPUs sharing the last level cache: */
>>  DECLARE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);
>> +#else
>> +static DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_llc_shared_bits, NR_CPUS) __read_mostly = { [0] = 1UL };
>> +static struct cpumask *const cpu_llc_shared_map = to_cpumask(cpu_llc_shared_bits);
>> +#endif
> Why not just expose it like on SMP?
> We want to *reduce* the specialness of UP, not increase it - one
> more word of .data and .text does not matter much - UP is
> becoming more and more an oddball, rarely tested config. By the
> time these changes hit any real boxes it will be even more
> oddball.

It seems that cpu_llc_shared_map is actually defined in
arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c, which is not compiled/linked for UP builds.
Is there an equivalent file for UP that could be used instead, or
could the:

DEFINE_PER_CPU(cpumask_var_t, cpu_llc_shared_map);

be moved to some other file?

Generally, it sounds like you might approve of an eventual merging of
the boot paths for SMP and UP. Is that true? I wonder how much work
that would be. That would really reduce the specialness of UP.

Kevin Winchester
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: 2012-02-10 01:03    [W:0.071 / U:1.012 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site