From: Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>
To: Ruth Ivimey-Cook <Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org>
Cc: "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_NR_CPUS, redux
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:29:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3D06418F.3050904@evision-ventures.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206111917310.3521-100000@sharra.ivimey.org>
Użytkownik Ruth Ivimey-Cook napisał:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
>
>>On 11 Jun 2002, Robert Love wrote:
>>
>>| Here are the defaults I picked:
>>|
>>| CONFIG_NR_CPUS=32: i386, mips, parisc, ppc, sparc
>>
>>I don't know what is "typical" for non-x86, but for x86, why not
>>use something more like a 'typical' NR_CPUS for SMP, like 8 (?)...
>>why still waste all of that memory?
>
>
> Perhaps it's just because I'm coming in late, but I cannot understand why
> NR_CPUS cannot be as low as 4 by default, for all archs, and then in the
> kernel boot messages, should more be found than is configured for a message is
> emitted to say "reconfigure your kernel", and continue with the number it was
> configured for. I personally only rarely see 2-way boxes, 4-way is pretty
> rare, and anything more must surely count as very specialized.
>
> Let the defaults be reasonable for 99% of users (IMO 99.9%), and let the rest
> have to think about config options...
Actually 2 would only make sense on Intel.
Well and then you have to account for the recent
HT additions so this becoumes 4.
On Sparc 4 is quite common.
But anything above is indeed very very rare.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-11 18:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-11 17:52 [PATCH] CONFIG_NR_CPUS, redux Robert Love
2002-06-11 18:09 ` Randy.Dunlap
2002-06-11 18:19 ` Robert Love
2002-06-11 18:21 ` Ruth Ivimey-Cook
2002-06-11 18:28 ` Robert Love
2002-06-12 1:36 ` jw schultz
2002-06-12 15:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-06-12 15:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-06-11 18:29 ` Martin Dalecki [this message]
2002-06-11 23:20 ` Dave Jones
2002-06-13 8:51 ` Helge Hafting
2002-06-19 11:53 ` Bill Davidsen
2002-06-11 20:10 ` Rob Radez
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-12 3:29 Matt_Domsch
2002-06-12 4:13 ` Austin Gonyou
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3D06418F.3050904@evision-ventures.com \
--to=dalecki@evision-ventures.com \
--cc=Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox