[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS:something about ia64 that nobody would read :-)


  • To: "Magenheimer, Dan \(HP Labs Fort Collins\)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>, "xen-devel" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:53:06 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:52:38 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcVWYhOb6iQzwhbMQRu/rv1j8qXTbgACSROw
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS:something about ia64 that nobody would read :-)

 
 
> > I'd vote for expunging CONFIG_SMP.
> 
> I've heard its not uncommon when debugging nasty problems on 
> Linux to turn off SMP as it simplifies the world considerably.

Seting maxcpus=1 has basically the same dynamic effect. The only point
of having the build option is to reduce the number of LOCK'ed
operations.

Ian
 
> I'm not sure this same argument applies to Xen, but there's 
> enough kernel hackers on this list that I thought it would be 
> interesting to open this up for discussion.
> 
> Granted, turning off SMP on Xen/x86 doesn't even compile 
> right now, but that should be fixable.
> 
> So... opinions anyone?  Is keeping CONFIG_SMP (potentially) 
> useful or not?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.