linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131104141051.GA19355@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:10:51 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, prarit@...hat.com,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024


* Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Why touch MAXSMP at all? It's really just a shortcut for 'configure 
> > the kernel silly large', via a single option, nothing else. You are 
> > not forced to use it and it should not affect configurability of 
> > NR_CPUS.
> >
> > What we _really_ want here is to fix NR_CPUS setting: to extend its 
> > range and to enforce that NR_CPUS cannot be set larger than 512 
> > without setting CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
> 
> OK.  I was just thinking that if we've come to the conclusion that 4096 
> CPUs isn't silly large anymore, we should make MAXSMP be something we 
> consider silly large. [...]

MAXSMP is also supposed to track the real hardware max as well on x86 - 
i.e. we should only increase it to 8192 etc. if such hardware exists.

Thanks,

	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/