[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49823869.4010406@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:14:49 -0800
From: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow 8 more cpus could be used
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Impact: fix left out MARCO
>>>>
>>>> X86_PC will be always enabled. so need to check if we have bigsmp
>>>> support built in before cut off more than 8 cpus.
>>> ah, that's a leftover reference to X86_PC. It can now be removed, together
>>> with the Kconfig X86_PC option.
>>>
>>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_X86_PC) && defined(CONFIG_X86_32)
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_PC) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP)
>>>> if (def_to_bigsmp && nr_cpu_ids > 8) {
>>>> unsigned int cpu;
>>>> unsigned nr;
>>> Could you please send a patch that removes both X86_PC and X86_BIGSMP -
>>> and removes the above cutoff code too, so that it will be built-in all the
>>> time?
>> and at what cost, please?
>
> the size difference between a bigsmp and a normal-smp x86 defconfig kernel
> is 0.011%. Zero difference on a UP kernel. (And UP is what most of the
> ultra-embedded systems are using)
That's static size? how about cpu and apic table space?
Thanks,
--
~Randy
--
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