From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754724Ab0DPH06 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:26:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f220.google.com ([209.85.219.220]:44386 "EHLO mail-ew0-f220.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752361Ab0DPH04 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Apr 2010 03:26:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=scOs4pdiyvR6luIYj4Qmg45F+6yjhZbGDAd4yD5ZIG7ZYhrp1/KcmH7OCC9Hgea8Jm 5DAc294lz69sDMvElZnDBFqtSE8Mdaj/G3mJ0SFTehMX/KeqBXYvMJ1Hzwnc00Sq028h vK3kPUOgZsRWyd1wPnaJttcevYxgy5hPm3dGg= Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 09:26:52 +0200 From: Andreas Herrmann To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Lee Schermerhorn , Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: useless node/has_cpu sysfs attribute Message-ID: <20100416072652.GA4489@alberich.amd.com> References: <20100415061200.GC21517@alberich.amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 07:27:42PM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Andreas Herrmann wrote: > > > commit 99dcc3e5a94ed491fbef402831d8c0bbb267f995 (this_cpu: Page > > allocator conversion) removed the call > > > > node_set_state(node, N_CPU); /* this node has a cpu */ > This was moved to vmstat_cpuup_callback. See mm/vmstat.c. Maybe it needs > to be added to setup_vmstat() as well. Ok. I missed that one. > > Thus the sysfs attribute /sys/devices/system/node/has_cpu doesn't > > show anything anymore. > > Thats strange. Why is the cpuup notifier not executing? I'll try to figure this out. > > This attribute never reflected any changes triggered by CPU hotplug. > > Duh some breakage in the cpuup notifier handling? > > This needs to be fixed. Why don't we try to call node_clear_state(node, N_CPU) anywhere? (Maybe there is such a call and I missed it.) Do we want to list each node with this attribute that has a CPU regardless whether the CPU is actually offline or online? That is the reason why I wanted to know who is relying on this attribute and what are the use cases of it. Thanks, Andreas