Hello,

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 09:43:20AM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:

On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 09:07:52AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 2021-11-27 at 19:57 -0800, Yury Norov wrote:

quoted

Add num_{possible,present,active}_cpus_{eq,gt,le} and replace num_*_cpus()
with one of new functions where appropriate. This allows num_*_cpus_*()
to return earlier depending on the condition.

[]

quoted

diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arc/kernel/smp.c

[]

quoted

@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ void __init smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
 	 * if platform didn't set the present map already, do it now
 	 * boot cpu is set to present already by init/main.c
 	 */
-	if (num_present_cpus() <= 1)
+	if (num_present_cpus_le(2))
 		init_cpu_present(cpu_possible_mask);

?  is this supposed to be 2 or 1

X <= 1 is the equivalent of X < 2.

quoted

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c

[]

quoted

@@ -593,7 +593,7 @@ static int __init pcc_cpufreq_init(void)
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	if (num_present_cpus() > 4) {
+	if (num_present_cpus_gt(4)) {
 		pcc_cpufreq_driver.flags |= CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING;
 		pr_err("%s: Too many CPUs, dynamic performance scaling disabled\n",
 		       __func__);

It looks as if the present variants should be using the same values
so the _le test above with 1 changed to 2 looks odd.

I think the confusion comes from le meaning less than rather than lt.
Given the general convention of: lt (<), le (<=), eg (=), ge (>=),
gt (>), I'd consider renaming your le to lt.

Thanks,
Dennis