On 11/04/2013 09:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:10:51PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> * Josh Boyer <jwbo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >>>> Why touch MAXSMP at all? It's really just a shortcut for 'configure >>>> the kernel silly large', via a single option, nothing else. You are >>>> not forced to use it and it should not affect configurability of >>>> NR_CPUS. >>>> >>>> What we _really_ want here is to fix NR_CPUS setting: to extend its >>>> range and to enforce that NR_CPUS cannot be set larger than 512 >>>> without setting CONFIG_CPUMASK_OFFSTACK. >>> >>> OK. I was just thinking that if we've come to the conclusion that 4096 >>> CPUs isn't silly large anymore, we should make MAXSMP be something we >>> consider silly large. [...] >> >> MAXSMP is also supposed to track the real hardware max as well on x86 - >> i.e. we should only increase it to 8192 etc. if such hardware exists. > > Russ, does SGI (or anyone else that you know of) have x86 hardware with > more than 4096 CPUs?
I can answer this for Russ. Yes, SGI has boxes that hit 5120. P. > > If so, I can actually make a bump to the MAXSMP count a separate patch. > > josh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
