Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:19:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:19:34 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([12.44.186.158]:46322 "EHLO hermes.mvista.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:19:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] CONFIG_NR_CPUS, redux From: Robert Love To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@zip.com.au In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 11 Jun 2002 11:19:34 -0700 Message-Id: <1023819574.22156.258.camel@sinai> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:09, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > I don't know what is "typical" for non-x86, but for x86, why not > use something more like a 'typical' NR_CPUS for SMP, like 8 (?)... > why still waste all of that memory? Well right now we set it to 32... I think out-of-the-box Linux, with SMP set, should support the maximum number of CPUs. While we do save some memory I do not think it is going to be huge with 8 vs 32. But whatever you, Linus, and the arch maintainers say... all my boxen are 2-way so I don't care ;) > What was this problem? I missed it but would like to see it. > (or do you know what the Subject: was?) Not sure to be honest. The subject was "[patch] CONFIG_NR_CPUS" Or ask Andrew... > One spello (typo) below. > > | + mimimum value which makes sense is 2. (cough) someone else wrote that ;) Fixed, thanks. Robert Love - 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/