[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4876B043.7040304@sgi.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:58:43 -0700
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Mike Travis wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, that might be the way to go.... At boot up time determine the
>> size of the system in terms of cpu count and memory available and
>> attempt to do the right thing, with startup options to override the
>> internal choices... ?
>>
>> (Surely a system that has a "gazillion ip tunnels" could modify it's
>> kernel start options... ;-)
>>
>> Unfortunately, we can't use a MODULE to support different options unless
>> we change how the kernel starts up (would need to mount the root fs
>> before starting secondary cpus.)
>>
>
> Using a module doesn't make any sense anyway. This is more what the
> kernel command line is for.
>
> -hpa
I was thinking that supporting virtual percpu addresses would take a fair
amount of code that, if living in a MODULE, wouldn't impact small systems.
But it seems to be not worth the effort... ;-)
Thanks,
Mike
--
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