From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753620AbbCEAvm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:51:42 -0500 Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:40909 "EHLO mail-wg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751766AbbCEAvk (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Mar 2015 19:51:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 01:51:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Arjan van de Ven , Dave Airlie , Andrew Morton , Jiri Kosina , Vojtech Pavlik , Josh Poimboeuf , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Seth Jennings , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Borislav Petkov , live-patching@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: live kernel upgrades (was: live kernel patching design) Message-ID: <20150305005135.GA21251@gmail.com> References: <20150222084601.GA23491@gmail.com> <20150222094639.GA23684@gmail.com> <20150222104841.GA25335@gmail.com> <20150222150148.3c566837.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20150224091621.GA19976@gmail.com> <54EC6E80.3040209@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54EC6E80.3040209@suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 02/24/2015, 10:16 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > and we don't design the Linux kernel for weird, extreme cases, we > > design for the common, sane case that has the broadest appeal, and > > we hope that the feature garners enough interest to be > > maintainable. > > Hello, > > oh, so why do we have NR_CPUS up to 8192, then? [...] Because: - More CPUs is not some weird dead end, but a natural direction of hardware development. - Furthermore, we've gained a lot of scalability and other improvements all around the kernel just by virtue of big iron running into those problems first. - In the typical case there's no friction between 8192 CPUs and the kernel's design. Where there was friction (and it happened), we pushed back. Such benefits add up and 8K CPUs support is a success story today. That positive, symbiotic, multi-discipline relationship between 8K CPUs support design goals and 'regular Linux' design goals stands in stark contrast with the single-issue approach that live kernel patching is designing itself into a dead end so early on ... Thanks, Ingo