From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
prarit@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:53:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131104065343.GC13030@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131103155729.GB9944@hansolo.jdub.homelinux.org>
* Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 11:21:32AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Josh Boyer <jwboyer@redhat.com> 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 <jwboyer@fedoraproject.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > 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.
>
> No real reason to not allow all the way to 4096, no. I just started
> small as I wanted 1024 specifically, and this is the simplest way to
> achieve that.
>
> > The other reason was CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK: with 4096 CPUs a cpumask is
> > 512 bytes, too large to be kept on the kernel stack.
> >
> > MAXSMP forces CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK so there's no such concern there.
> >
> > With 1024 CPUs a single cpumask is 128 bytes - rather significant as well.
> > With 512 CPUs it's 64 bytes - borderline.
> >
> > So I think a better solution would be to allow an increase above 512 CPUs
> > only if CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK is also enabled.
>
> OK, that makes sense. So in this scenario, we could probably either:
>
> a) do away with MAXSMP entirely and just depend on
> CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
>
> b) make MAXSMP something even higher than 4096. Like 5120 or 6144, etc.
>
> Which would you prefer? Either is easy enough to code up, I just need
> to know which I should shoot for.
Why touch MAXSMP at all? It's really just a shortcut for 'configure the
kernel silly large', via a single option, nothing else. You are not forced
to use it and it should not affect configurability of NR_CPUS.
What we _really_ want here is to fix NR_CPUS setting: to extend its range
and to enforce that NR_CPUS cannot be set larger than 512 without setting
CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-04 6:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-01 14:11 [PATCH] x86: Allow NR_CPUS=1024 Josh Boyer
2013-11-03 10:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-03 10:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-03 15:57 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-03 17:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-11-04 6:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-04 16:31 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-11-04 6:53 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-11-04 14:01 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-04 14:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-04 14:16 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-04 14:54 ` Prarit Bhargava
2013-11-04 15:56 ` Russ Anderson
2013-11-04 17:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-04 19:08 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-11-04 20:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-04 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-11-05 6:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-05 6:31 ` Li Zefan
2013-11-03 14:29 ` Prarit Bhargava
2013-11-03 14:42 ` Russ Anderson
2013-11-05 14:37 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: Allow higher NR_CPUS values Josh Boyer
2013-11-05 14:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: Increase MAXSMP CPU count to 8192 Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 5:56 ` [PATCH v2 " Ingo Molnar
2013-11-06 14:10 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 11:20 ` [tip:x86/cpu] x86/cpu: Increase max " tip-bot for Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 7:15 ` [PATCH 1/2 v2] x86: Allow higher NR_CPUS values Ingo Molnar
2013-11-06 14:12 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 15:04 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 15:21 ` [PATCH v3] x86/cpu: " Josh Boyer
2013-11-07 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-11-07 13:51 ` Josh Boyer
2013-11-06 11:20 ` [tip:x86/cpu] " tip-bot for Josh Boyer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131104065343.GC13030@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jwboyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=prarit@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).