[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080321145736.GC1545@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:57:36 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
Cc: ak@...e.de, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] - Allow NODES_SHIFT to be a config option on x86_64
* Jack Steiner <steiner@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 03:26:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Jack Steiner <steiner@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > Allow the maximum number of nodes in an x86_64 system to be
> > > configurable. This patch does NOT change the default value but allows
> > > the value to be a config option.
> >
> > i've applied your patch - but i'm wondering, shouldnt we auto-scale the
> > default according to max number of CPUs? (with some sensible scaling
> > that happens to meet your expected large-system needs as well ;-) All
> > the current manual configuration of nodes shift is ugly.
>
> I would prefer to auto-scale, too, but our hardware platform allows
> too many options to make it easy. The current system configs will
> support from 0 to 32 cpus per node (some nodes have memory only).
>
> However, I'm open to suggestions if you have any ideas....
how about scaling for the worst case, and allowing distros to tune down
if they really want? What's the cost of a too large NODE_SHIFT?
Ingo
--
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