Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755213AbYC3VP2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:15:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753395AbYC3VPO (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:15:14 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:60902 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753188AbYC3VPN (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:15:13 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:18:48 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: Jack Steiner Cc: Yinghai Lu , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , tglx@linutronix.de, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 8/8] x86_64: Support for new UV apic Message-ID: <20080330211848.GA29105@one.firstfloor.org> References: <20080324182122.GA28327@sgi.com> <87abknhzhd.fsf@basil.nowhere.org> <20080325175657.GA6262@sgi.com> <20080326073823.GD3442@elte.hu> <86802c440803301323q5c4bd4f4k1f9bdc1d6b1a0a7b@mail.gmail.com> <20080330210356.GA13383@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080330210356.GA13383@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1447 Lines: 34 > If there was a significant differece between UV and generic kernels > (or hardware), then I would agree. However, the only significant > difference is the APIC model on large systems. Small systems are > exactly compatible. > > The problem with subarch is that we want 1 binary kernel to support x86-64 subarchs are more options than true subarchs. They generally do not prevent the kernel from running on other systems, just control addition of some additional code or special data layout. They are quite different from the i386 subarchs or those of other architectures. The main reason vSMP is called a subarch is that it pads a lot of data structures to 4K and you don't really want that on your normal kernel, but there isn't anything in there that would prevent booting on a normal system. The UV option certainly doesn't have this issue. > both generic hardware AND uv hardware. This restriction is desirable > for the distros and software vendors. Otherwise, additional kernel > images would have to be built, released, & certified. I think an option would be fine, just don't call it a subarch. I don't feel strongly about it, as you point out it is not really very much code. -Andi -- 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/