On 18/10/16 22:00, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:19:10 +1100
> Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>
>> Ping, anyone?
> I have a similar patch
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/681709/
> which bumps limit to 288 and does a little bit more
> so it wouldn't affect current users.
Why 288 (not oldlimit<<n)? :)
What does happen to the Greg's patch now?
>
> After that's merged, I plan to get rid of this limit and
> make that part of numa parsing code dynamic so that it
> wouldn't impose such limit/any limits on target code.
>
>>
>>
>> On 04/10/16 11:33, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>> From: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Some systems can already provide more than 255 hardware threads.
>>>
>>> Bumping the QEMU limit to 1024 seems reasonable:
>>> - it has no visible overhead in top;
>>> - the limit itself has no effect on hot paths.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gk...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru>
>>> ---
>>> include/sysemu/sysemu.h | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/sysemu/sysemu.h b/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>> index ef2c50b..2ec0bd8 100644
>>> --- a/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>> +++ b/include/sysemu/sysemu.h
>>> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ extern int mem_prealloc;
>>> *
>>> * Note that cpu->get_arch_id() may be larger than MAX_CPUMASK_BITS.
>>> */
>>> -#define MAX_CPUMASK_BITS 255
>>> +#define MAX_CPUMASK_BITS 1024
>>>
>>> #define MAX_OPTION_ROMS 16
>>> typedef struct QEMUOptionRom {
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Alexey
