[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5277B53D.7030100@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 09:54:53 -0500
From: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024
On 11/04/2013 09:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:10:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * 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.
>
> Russ, does SGI (or anyone else that you know of) have x86 hardware with
> more than 4096 CPUs?
I can answer this for Russ. Yes, SGI has boxes that hit 5120.
P.
>
> If so, I can actually make a bump to the MAXSMP count a separate patch.
>
> josh
--
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