On 10/06/2023 23:10:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01 2023 at 18:19, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> @@ -435,12 +435,17 @@ void __init cpu_smt_disable(bool force)
>> * The decision whether SMT is supported can only be done after the full
>> * CPU identification. Called from architecture
On Mon, Jun 12 2023 at 17:20, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 10/06/2023 23:10:02, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> This needs more thoughts to avoid a completely inconsistent duct tape
>> mess.
>
> Despite the test against smt_enabled_at_boot, mentioned above, I can't see
> anything else to rework. Am I
On Thu, Jun 01 2023 at 18:19, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> @@ -435,12 +435,17 @@ void __init cpu_smt_disable(bool force)
> * The decision whether SMT is supported can only be done after the full
> * CPU identification. Called from architecture code.
> */
> -void __init
On 01/06/2023 15:27:30, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 24/05/2023 17:56:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Add support for HOTPLUG_SMT, which enables the generic sysfs SMT support
>> files in /sys/devices/system/cpu/smt, as well as the "nosmt" boot
>> parameter.
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> It seems that there
On 24/05/2023 17:56:29, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Add support for HOTPLUG_SMT, which enables the generic sysfs SMT support
> files in /sys/devices/system/cpu/smt, as well as the "nosmt" boot
> parameter.
Hi Michael,
It seems that there is now a conflict between with the PPC 'smt-enabled'
boot
Add support for HOTPLUG_SMT, which enables the generic sysfs SMT support
files in /sys/devices/system/cpu/smt, as well as the "nosmt" boot
parameter.
Implement the recently added hooks to allow partial SMT states, allow
any number of threads per core.
Tie the config symbol to HOTPLUG_CPU, which
