On 2013/11/5 14:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> On 11/04/2013 12:11 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>>> * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
8192 maybe?
>>>
>>> Yeah, that makes more sense I guess.
>>>
>>
>> However, I still have serious issues with crap like this because
>> ran
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 12:11 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> >> 8192 maybe?
> >
> > Yeah, that makes more sense I guess.
> >
>
> However, I still have serious issues with crap like this because
> randconfig is basically broken. If nothing els
On 11/04/2013 12:11 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> 8192 maybe?
>
> Yeah, that makes more sense I guess.
>
However, I still have serious issues with crap like this because
randconfig is basically broken. If nothing else we need to get that
feedback to the kconfig main
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 8192 maybe?
Yeah, that makes more sense I guess.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
P
8192 maybe?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>* Russ Anderson wrote:
>
>> > Russ, does SGI (or anyone else that you know of) have x86 hardware
>> > with more than 4096 CPUs?
>>
>> Yes. We have a system in the lab with 254 12-core IVB sockets for a
>> total of 3048 cores. With HT is it 6096 cpus.
>
>It
* Russ Anderson wrote:
> > Russ, does SGI (or anyone else that you know of) have x86 hardware
> > with more than 4096 CPUs?
>
> Yes. We have a system in the lab with 254 12-core IVB sockets for a
> total of 3048 cores. With HT is it 6096 cpus.
It would then be nice to up MAXSMP to 6144 or
On 11/03/2013 10:51 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> randconfig will not randomize numeric Kconfig ranges, so there's no other
> mechanism right now to trigger those large config kernels.
>
Sounds like the real problem...
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe li
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:16:16AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:10:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > > > Why touch MAXSMP at all? It's really just a shortcut for 'configure
> > > > the kernel silly large', via a single option, nothing else. Y
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 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 force
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:10:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Boyer 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 configu
* Josh Boyer 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
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:53:43AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512,
* Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Josh Boyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the
> > > > case
> > > > of MAXSMP. There are machines that h
* H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 07:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > OK, that makes sense. So in this scenario, we could probably either:
> >
> > a) do away with MAXSMP entirely and just depend on
> > CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
> >
> > b) make MAXSMP something even higher than 4096. Li
On 11/03/2013 07:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> OK, that makes sense. So in this scenario, we could probably either:
>
> a) do away with MAXSMP entirely and just depend on
> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
>
> b) make MAXSMP something even higher than 4096. Like 5120 or 6144, etc.
>
> Which would you
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> >
> > * Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > > The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case
> > > of MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and
> > > configuring
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 09:29:16AM -0500, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> On 11/03/2013 05:18 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >> The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case
> >> of MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and
On 11/03/2013 05:18 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case
>> of MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and
>> configuring a kernel for that means you are forced to set MAXSMP. This
* Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case
> > of MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and
> > configuring a kernel for that means you are forced to set MAXSMP. This
> > adds addition
* Josh Boyer wrote:
> The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case
> of MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and
> configuring a kernel for that means you are forced to set MAXSMP. This
> adds additional unnecessary overhead. While that o
The current range for SMP configs is 2 - 512, or a full 4096 in the case of
MAXSMP. There are machines that have 1024 CPUs in them today and configuring
a kernel for that means you are forced to set MAXSMP. This adds additional
unnecessary overhead. While that overhead might be considered tiny f
21 matches
Mail list logo
