On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:15:27AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
> provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
> implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:15:27AM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
> provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
> implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:15:27AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
> provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
> implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
> CPUs
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:15:27AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
> provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
> implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
> CPUs
Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
CPUs present even with nosmp, which allows the userspace to bring them
up.
Passing "nosmp" should boot the kernel with a single processor, without
provision to enable secondary CPUs even if they are present. "nosmp" is
implemented by setting maxcpus=0. At the moment we still mark the secondary
CPUs present even with nosmp, which allows the userspace to bring them
up.
6 matches
Mail list logo