> > > >---- Original Message ---- >From: ron.l.john...@cox.net >To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32? >Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:44:39 -0500 > >>On 10/22/2010 10:34 AM, ow...@netptc.net wrote: >>>> >>>> ---- Original Message ---- >>>> From: ron.l.john...@cox.net >>>> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org >>>> Subject: Re: Debian stock kernel config -- CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32? >>>> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:00:45 -0500 >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Correct. The amount of effort needed for cross-CPU >communication, >>>>> cache coherency and OS process coordination increases much more >than >>>> >>>>> linearly as you add CPUs. >>> >>> In fact IIRC the additional overhead follows the square of the >number >>> of CPUs. >> Ron et al See the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl's_law Larry >>Maybe in brute-force implementations, but otherwise the machine >>would bog down after just a few CPUs. >> >>Note that h/w engineers and OS designers/writers have put a lot of >>work into minimizing the overhead and maximize the parallelism of >>extra CPUs. >> >>-- >>Seek truth from facts. >> >> >>-- >>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org >>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >listmas...@lists.debian.org >>Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cc1cd87.9050...@cox.net >> >>
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/380-2201010522221845...@netptc.net
