Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753691AbWKDTjb (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:39:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753694AbWKDTjb (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:39:31 -0500 Received: from nsm.pl ([195.34.211.229]:29141 "EHLO nsm.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753690AbWKDTja (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:39:30 -0500 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:39:16 +0100 From: Tomasz Torcz To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New filesystem for Linux Message-ID: <20061104193916.GA11717@irc.pl> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <454A76CC.6030003@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 869 Lines: 19 On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 07:40:13PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote: > >The problem with a per_cpu biglock is that you may consume a lot of RAM > >for big NR_CPUS. Count 32 KB per 'biglock' if NR_CPUS=1024 > > Does one Linux kernel run on system with 1024 cpus? I guess it must fry > spinlocks... (or even lockup due to spinlock livelocks) SGI Altix systems comes to mind. I believe that Itanium even comes in dual core flavor, that would give 2048 CPUs. -- Tomasz Torcz 72->| 80->| zdzichu@irc.-nie.spam-.pl 72->| 80->| - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/