On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 09:41:22AM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/22/19 11:36 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > On 8/22/19 8:58 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> > > On 8/19/19 9:15 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> > > > On 8/16/19 2:57 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > > > Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-
Hi,
On 8/22/19 11:36 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/22/19 8:58 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
On 8/19/19 9:15 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/16/19 2:57 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-2019 om 14:04 [+0200]:
RHEL has a larger NR_CPU value, though. For example, it's 8192 on
x
On 8/22/19 8:58 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
On 8/19/19 9:15 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 8/16/19 2:57 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-2019 om 14:04 [+0200]:
RHEL has a larger NR_CPU value, though. For example, it's 8192 on
x86-64, while Fedora 31 has 1024.
On the Fedor
On 8/19/19 9:15 AM, Laura Abbott wrote:
> On 8/16/19 2:57 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
>> Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-2019 om 14:04 [+0200]:
>>> RHEL has a larger NR_CPU value, though. For example, it's 8192 on
>>> x86-64, while Fedora 31 has 1024.
>>
>> On the Fedora x86-64 debug builds it's 8192
On 8/16/19 2:55 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
Hi Laura,
Laura Abbott schreef op do 15-08-2019 om 15:57 [-0400]:
.../fedora/generic/x86/x86_64/CONFIG_NR_CPUS | 2 +-
kernel.spec | 2 --
...-CPUMASK_OFFSTACK-usable-without-deb.patch | 34 ---
3 fi
On 8/16/19 2:57 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-2019 om 14:04 [+0200]:
RHEL has a larger NR_CPU value, though. For example, it's 8192 on
x86-64, while Fedora 31 has 1024.
On the Fedora x86-64 debug builds it's 8192 again. Why's that?
Paul Bolle
That's the option
Florian Weimer schreef op vr 16-08-2019 om 14:04 [+0200]:
> RHEL has a larger NR_CPU value, though. For example, it's 8192 on
> x86-64, while Fedora 31 has 1024.
On the Fedora x86-64 debug builds it's 8192 again. Why's that?
Paul Bolle
___
kernel mail
Hi Laura,
Laura Abbott schreef op do 15-08-2019 om 15:57 [-0400]:
> .../fedora/generic/x86/x86_64/CONFIG_NR_CPUS | 2 +-
> kernel.spec | 2 --
> ...-CPUMASK_OFFSTACK-usable-without-deb.patch | 34 ---
> 3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 37 delet
* Laura Abbott:
> On 8/16/19 6:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
>>>
>>> We've been carrying a patch to make CPUMASK_OFFSTACK selectable
>>> without debugging for a long time now. The comment said this was
>>> going to be replaced with something else
On 8/16/19 6:58 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
We've been carrying a patch to make CPUMASK_OFFSTACK selectable
without debugging for a long time now. The comment said this was
going to be replaced with something else but that never seemed
to happen. W
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:57 PM Laura Abbott wrote:
>
> We've been carrying a patch to make CPUMASK_OFFSTACK selectable
> without debugging for a long time now. The comment said this was
> going to be replaced with something else but that never seemed
> to happen. We're carrying it to have a highe
We've been carrying a patch to make CPUMASK_OFFSTACK selectable
without debugging for a long time now. The comment said this was
going to be replaced with something else but that never seemed
to happen. We're carrying it to have a higher number of CPUs but
at this point I don't think it's worth it
12 matches
Mail list logo
