Ingo Molnar wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Fixup change NR_CPUS patchset by rebasing on 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 >> from 2.6.24-rc6-mm1) and adding changes suggested by reviews. >> >> Based on 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 + latest (08/1/21) git-x86 >> >> Note there are two versions of this patchset: >> - 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 >> - 2.6.24-rc8-mm1 + latest (08/1/21) git-x86 > > thanks, applied. > >> Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> --- >> Fixup-V2: >> - pulled the SMP_MAX patch as it's not strictly needed and some >> more work on local cpumask_t variables needs to be done before >> NR_CPUS is allowed to increase. > > i'd still love to see CONFIG_SMP_MAX, so that we can have continuous > randconfig testing of the large-SMP aspects of the x86 architecture, > even on smaller systems. > > What's the maximum that should work right now? 256 or perhaps even 512 > CPU ought to work fine i think?
I'm attempting to gather stack (and memory) usage for increased cpu counts right now. But I'll have another set of basic changes before the cpumask_t changes can be done. Thanks, Mike > > and then once the on-stack usage problems are fixed, the NR_CPUS value > in CONFIG_SMP_MAX can be increased. So SMP_MAX would also act as "this > is how far we can go in the upstream kernel" documentation. > > [ btw., the crash i remember was rather related to the NODES_SHIFT > increase to 9, not from the NR_CPUSs increase. (the config i sent > still has NR_CPUS==8, because Kconfig did not pick up the right > NR_CPUs value dicatated by SMP_MAX.) If you resend the SMP_MAX patch > against latest x86.git i can retest this. ] > > Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
