All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: travis@sgi.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: Reduce memory usage for large count NR_CPUs fixup V2 with git-x86
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:48:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080122124811.GD7304@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080121211618.599818000@sgi.com>


* travis@sgi.com <travis@sgi.com> 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 <travis@sgi.com>
> ---
> 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?

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

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: travis@sgi.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] x86: Reduce memory usage for large count NR_CPUs fixup V2 with git-x86
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:48:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080122124811.GD7304@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080121211618.599818000@sgi.com>

* travis@sgi.com <travis@sgi.com> 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 <travis@sgi.com>
> ---
> 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?

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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-01-22 12:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-01-21 21:16 [PATCH 0/3] x86: Reduce memory usage for large count NR_CPUs fixup V2 with git-x86 travis
2008-01-21 21:16 ` travis
2008-01-21 21:16 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86: Change size of node ids from u8 to s16 " travis
2008-01-21 21:16   ` travis
2008-01-21 21:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: Change NR_CPUS arrays in numa_64 " travis
2008-01-21 21:16   ` travis
2008-01-21 21:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: Add debug of invalid per_cpu map accesses " travis
2008-01-21 21:16   ` travis
2008-01-22 12:48 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-01-22 12:48   ` [PATCH 0/3] x86: Reduce memory usage for large count NR_CPUs " Ingo Molnar
2008-01-22 15:10   ` Mike Travis
2008-01-22 15:10     ` Mike Travis

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=20080122124811.GD7304@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=travis@sgi.com \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.