From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753089Ab3KCKSa (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 05:18:30 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f171.google.com ([209.85.215.171]:47941 "EHLO mail-ea0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752413Ab3KCKS3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 Nov 2013 05:18:29 -0500 Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2013 11:18:25 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Josh Boyer Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , prarit@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024 Message-ID: <20131103101825.GA6605@gmail.com> References: <20131101141148.GH8652@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131101141148.GH8652@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * 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 overhead might be > considered tiny for large machines, it isn't necessarily so if you are > building a kernel that runs across a wide variety of machines. We > increase the range to 1024 to help with this. > > Signed-off-by: Josh Boyer > --- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig > index f67e839..d726b2d 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig > @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ config MAXSMP > config NR_CPUS > int "Maximum number of CPUs" if SMP && !MAXSMP > range 2 8 if SMP && X86_32 && !X86_BIGSMP > - range 2 512 if SMP && !MAXSMP > + range 2 1024 if SMP && !MAXSMP > default "1" if !SMP > default "4096" if MAXSMP > default "32" if SMP && (X86_NUMAQ || X86_SUMMIT || X86_BIGSMP || X86_ES7000) Any reason not to allow it to go up to 4096? The original concern was that CPUS=4096 wasn't working very well and you had to select MAXSMP deliberately and keep all the pieces. But today it's all pretty robust so I see no reason why not to allow up to 4096 CPUs. Thanks, Ingo