On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:04:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of
> > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain
> > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over
> > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed.
> > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern
> > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but
> > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in
> > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0.
> >
> > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change
> > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless.
> > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for
> > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed
> > when there are zero CPUs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
>
> Looks good, thanks for doing that.
>
> Btw, I just got confirmation from hw folk that we can actually give you
> hardware support for that code with an upcoming CPU which has NR_CPUS=0
> cores.
>
> Oh, and additionally, we can disable some of those so getting into the
> negative is also doable from the hw perspective, so feel free to explore
> that side of the problem too.
>
> ACK.
Cute! ;-)
Thanx, Paul
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
