On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:00 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Do you mean that kexec doesn't work in SMP situations ? I am not sure what > > you > > mean about test situations and the SMP kernel should work just well in > > virtualized environments, but i have some trouble equating ia64 machines > > with > > low memory situations :) > > The new kernel started with kexec for debugging purposes may need to be > simple and small. AFAIK the amount of memory for the second kernel is > limited. Virtualization of SMP environments is pretty complex. In > many situations its just nice to have a UP kernel around.
Khalid: I know you've been hacking on kexec a lot lately - can you comment on the kexec case? Do you know if such a limitation exists, and what it is? Christoph: What other cases might you think of where booting an SMP kernel with maxcpus=1 is not sufficient? The only concern I had prior to starting this thread is the performance overhead; I'm interested in any benchmarks that might be able to demonstrate a difference here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
