From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759499AbZA2XIt (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:08:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755419AbZA2XIk (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:08:40 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:40093 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755334AbZA2XIk (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:08:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:08:27 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: allow 8 more cpus could be used Message-ID: <20090129230827.GA29611@elte.hu> References: <49822B1D.9070708@kernel.org> <20090129224236.GD1465@elte.hu> <4982315F.20705@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4982315F.20705@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Yinghai Lu wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > > >> Impact: fix left out MARCO > >> > >> X86_PC will be always enabled. so need to check if we have bigsmp > >> support built in before cut off more than 8 cpus. > > > > ah, that's a leftover reference to X86_PC. It can now be removed, together > > with the Kconfig X86_PC option. > > > >> -#if defined(CONFIG_X86_PC) && defined(CONFIG_X86_32) > >> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_PC) && !defined(CONFIG_X86_BIGSMP) > >> if (def_to_bigsmp && nr_cpu_ids > 8) { > >> unsigned int cpu; > >> unsigned nr; > > > > Could you please send a patch that removes both X86_PC and X86_BIGSMP - > > and removes the above cutoff code too, so that it will be built-in all the > > time? > > sure. maybe we could keep X86_BIGSMP for a while. So someone don't > enable BIGSMP for small system? yeah, we can certainly keep it - the code to conditionalize it is there and isnt causing problems really. Ingo