Hi Paul, Should I merge this temporary fix for liburcu tests, or should we go for dynamic allocation of the array right away instead ?
Thanks, Mathieu ----- On Dec 9, 2020, at 1:15 PM, Michael Jeanson mjean...@efficios.com wrote: > Machines with more than 128 CPUs are becomming more common, the proper > fix here would be to dynamically allocate the array which we will do, > but in the meantime bump the limit to 256 to fix the problem on a 160 > CPUs ppc64el system where this was reported. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Jeanson <mjean...@efficios.com> > Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@kernel.org> > Change-Id: Ib3cb5d8cb4515e6f626be33c2685fa38cb081782 > --- > tests/common/api.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/common/api.h b/tests/common/api.h > index 2b72ec5..b15e588 100644 > --- a/tests/common/api.h > +++ b/tests/common/api.h > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static void spin_unlock(spinlock_t *sp) > > typedef pthread_t thread_id_t; > > -#define NR_THREADS 128 > +#define NR_THREADS 256 > > #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_EMPTY ((thread_id_t) 0) > #define __THREAD_ID_MAP_WAITING ((thread_id_t) 1) > -- > 2.29.2 -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev