[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080816201235.GB7182@lenovo>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:12:35 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: apic - unify lapic_resume
[Arjan van de Ven - Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 01:00:08PM -0700]
| On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 20:52:07 +0100 (BST)
| "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org> wrote:
|
| > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >
| > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
| > > + if (x2apic)
| > > + enable_x2apic();
| > > + else
| > > +#endif
| >
| > Hmm, x86-64 hardware can run a 32-bit kernel, so it might be a good
| > idea to take the opportunity of the merge and extend x2APIC support
| > to the 32-bit configuration too. It should be mostly a mechanical
| > change. Just a suggestion though -- feel free to ignore if you'd
| > rather not dive into it. ;)
|
| it's not like you can/want to go over 128 cpus on a 32 bit kernel
| though..
| --
| If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
| For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
| visit http://www.lesswatts.org
|
Arjan,
it seems this limit is not APIC related since iirc 82489DX allows
to address 2^14 bits, x2APIC - more then 128 entities too. So I suspect
it somehow cpu bitmap related. Am I wrong (I didn't _check_ the code)?
- Cyrill -
--
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