lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Comments on UV tlb flushing
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:46:41AM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Cliff Wickman wrote:
>> But if the tlb_uv.o code should be present in "every" distro x86 kernel
>> I don't see the point of having to configure it in. Why not just
>> configure it out for small (embedded) kernels?
>
> Because it's not an binary thing. Lots of people who are compiling
> their own kernels for specialized uses don't set CONFIG_EMBEDDED, but
> also don't want a kitchen sink kernel. 6k isn't that much, but if every
> obscure platform enabled some always-on code it rapidly starts to build
> up.

But UV will not be obscure! It will be common among x86_64 :)
I know what you're talking about. It may sometimes be useful to turn
off chunks of code you don't need.
But is the specialized application of 64-bit processors big enough to
warrant the feature?
The size of most any 64-bit system would, I would think, make 6k of
code insignificant.
And the more options you add, the more likely someone will pick
combinations that won't work together.

> Basically, if you want to make sure if you're going to get some level of
> distro support, you need to make contact with the distros directly and
> talk about what you'd like them to do.
> J
And we do. And could reasonably expect that they would turn on that
option for x86_64 kernels. We'd just, of course, rather not have to watch
and prompt to be sure all x86_64 kernels will run on our hardware.

-Cliff
--
Cliff Wickman
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
cpw@sgi.com
(651) 683-3824


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-29 22:07    [W:0.063 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site