Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2021 23:20:18 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
To: Vincent Donnefort <>
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] sysconf: add _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF

* Vincent Donnefort <> [2021-07-02 14:29:37 +0100]:
> Here's a new thread as I never received your previous email and I just
> noticed the answer today.
> I'm not sure I understand why I can't use "present". As per the kernel
> documentation:
>     possible:   CPUs that have been allocated resources and can be
>                 brought online if they are present. [cpu_possible_mask]
>     present:    CPUs that have been identified as being present in the
>                 system. [cpu_present_mask]
>     In this example, the NR_CPUS config option is 128, but the kernel was
>     started with possible_cpus=144.  There are 4 CPUs in the system and cpu2
>     was manually taken offline (and is the only CPU that can be brought
>     online.)::
>          kernel_max: 127
>             offline: 2,4-127,128-143
>              online: 0-1,3
>            possible: 0-127
>             present: 0-3
> So indeed I could use "possible"... but there's a chance the two masks won't
> be equal, and the sysfs entries are matching "present", not "possible".
> "possible" is the CPUs that have allocated resources and can be physically
> added to the system. "present" is the CPUs that are known as physically
> present but might be offline.

i guess we just need a guarantee that these interfaces are stable
and the set of present cpus don't change during the lifetime of a
process. (can that even work with checkpoint/restore? probably not
our problem)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.