From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Limpach Subject: Re: CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:01:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3d8eece2050511130148d87466@mail.gmail.com> References: <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD542CAEC@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> Reply-To: Christian.Limpach@cl.cam.ac.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD542CAEC@cacexc12.americas.cpqcorp.net> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" Cc: xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 5/11/05, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) wrote: > > From: Ian Pratt [mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk] >=20 > > It's daft that we even have a CONFIG_SMP option in Xen. It spends most > > of its time broken because no-one using x86 builds it, and you won't > > even be able to buy any non SMP hardware before long... > > > > I'd vote for expunging CONFIG_SMP. >=20 > I've heard its not uncommon when debugging nasty problems on Linux > to turn off SMP as it simplifies the world considerably. I would either run on non-SMP hardware, use the nosmp option or if that's gone, just nobble the code that discovers multiple CPUs -- all these are definitely preferable to compiling Xen without CONFIG_SMP since that might change the code so much that the bug might not occur anymore. christian