From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.160]:51223 "EHLO e39.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1903724Ab2DASLg (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 20:11:36 +0200 Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:29 -0600 Received: from d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.179) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.139) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:27 -0600 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DC819D8048 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q31IBR0n189660 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:27 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q31IBPGX024210 for ; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:26 -0600 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (sig-9-49-152-53.mts.ibm.com [9.49.152.53]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q31IBO59024187; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:11:25 -0600 Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0E3C3E4ABB; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:11:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:11:15 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Borislav Petkov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-m32r@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-m32r-ja@ml.linux-m32r.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-am33-list@redhat.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, dhowells@redhat.com, jejb@parisc-linux.org, linux390@de.ibm.com, x86@kernel.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] Simplify the Linux kernel by reducing its state space Message-ID: <20120401181114.GY2450@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20120331163321.GA15809@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20120401100448.GD14848@liondog.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120401100448.GD14848@liondog.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12040118-4242-0000-0000-00000137C7FF X-archive-position: 32854 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Return-Path: On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:04:48PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:33:21AM +0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > Although there have been numerous complaints about the complexity of > > parallel programming (especially over the past 5-10 years), the plain > > truth is that the incremental complexity of parallel programming over > > that of sequential programming is not as large as is commonly believed. > > Despite that you might have heard, the mind-numbing complexity of modern > > computer systems is not due so much to there being multiple CPUs, but > > rather to there being any CPUs at all. In short, for the ultimate in > > computer-system simplicity, the optimal choice is NR_CPUS=0. > > > > This commit therefore limits kernel builds to zero CPUs. This change > > has the beneficial side effect of rendering all kernel bugs harmless. > > Furthermore, this commit enables additional beneficial changes, for > > example, the removal of those parts of the kernel that are not needed > > when there are zero CPUs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Looks good, thanks for doing that. > > Btw, I just got confirmation from hw folk that we can actually give you > hardware support for that code with an upcoming CPU which has NR_CPUS=0 > cores. > > Oh, and additionally, we can disable some of those so getting into the > negative is also doable from the hw perspective, so feel free to explore > that side of the problem too. > > ACK. Cute! ;-) Thanx, Paul