[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707130933140.21777@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc: ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, travis@....com,
jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: x86: Convert cpu_core_map to be a per cpu variable
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, David Miller wrote:
> From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 23:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > cpu_core_map is currently an array defined using NR_CPUS. This means that
> > we overallocate since we will rarely really use the maximum
> > number of configured cpus. This may become a problem when we need to
> > increase the NR_CPUs on x86_64 for our new product line.
>
> I'm using NR_CPUS set to 1024 on my sparc64 workstation, it's
> not that bad to be honest :-) What kind of cpu arity are you
> talking about?
Up to 16k.
> > If we put the cpu_core_map into the per cpu area then it will be allocated
> > for each processor as it comes online.
> >
> > However, this means that the core map cannot be accessed until the per cpu
> > area has been allocated. Xen does a weird thing here looping over all
> > processors and zeroing the masks that are not yet allocated and that will
> > be zeroed when they are allocated. I commented the code out. Maybe there
> > is another purpose? Jeremy?
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
>
> Please take care of sparc64 if you're going to do this change.
> It uses cpu_core_map too.
But the code modified here is x86_64 and i386 specific? Is there an
overlap?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists