[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] RE: [Xen-devel] A question about CONFIG_SMP
Keir Fraser wrote: > On 23 Feb 2006, at 08:51, Tian, Kevin wrote: > >> Just a curious question, does anyone still care xen/UP? If yes, >> current xen-unstable.hg failed to build quickly after undef >> CONFIG_SMP since many structures include types defined only when >> CONFIG_SMP is on. >> >> Just realize this issue when cleanup some IA64 code recently, where >> CONFIG_SMP is still unstable and thus UP only. >> >> Is there any benefit to have xen/UP? Reducing image size is the >> immediate answer in my head... > > It's not supported for xen/x86 at least. Dynamically adding LOCK > prefixes if the system turns out to be multiprocessor is the only > optimisation I think would be worthwhile. But really > multi-processor/core/thread is what we care about. > > -- Keir > That's right. I think the right thing to do is to set CONFIG_SMP by default forcing people to stabilize IA-64 Xen ASAP, rather than keeping it UP only. Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |