Re: Comments on UV tlb flushing

[Cliff Wickman <cpw@sgi.com>]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 02:12:18PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 July 2008 10:28, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > I'm just reworking the x86 tlb code to use smp_call_function_mask, and I
> > see how the UV tlb flushing hooks in.  A few things occur to me:
> >
> >    1. There should be a CONFIG_X86_UV to select this code.  tlb_uv.o is
> >       around 6k, which is not trivial overhead to subject every x86_64
> >       kernel to.
> 
> Definitely.

I'd like to talk about this issue separate from the virtualization one.

I think that the Linux distributions are not going to build a special
UV kernel, are they?  So every distro would have to be prompted to 
turn on CONFIG_X86_UV, or else their kernel is not going to boot on UV.

But you have a point about not linking the 6k UV object file where 
size is an issue.
Thanks for catching that.

Perhaps the UV code should be excluded if CONFIG_EMBEDDED is set.

-Cliff