[lkml]   [2002]   [Jun]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] CONFIG_NR_CPUS, redux
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 11:28:36AM -0700, Robert Love wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 11:21, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:
> > Perhaps it's just because I'm coming in late, but I cannot understand why
> > NR_CPUS cannot be as low as 4 by default, for all archs, and then in the
> > kernel boot messages, should more be found than is configured for a message is
> > emitted to say "reconfigure your kernel", and continue with the number it was
> > configured for. I personally only rarely see 2-way boxes, 4-way is pretty
> > rare, and anything more must surely count as very specialized.
> Ugh let's stop this thread now. Two points:
> (a) imo, the kernel should support out-of-the-box the maximum
> number of CPUs it can handle. Be lucky we now have a
> configure option to change that. But that does not matter..
> (b) Right now it is 32. Now you can change it... if you want
> to change the current behavior by _default_ why don't we
> suggest that _after_ this is accepted into 2.5? I.e., one
> battle at a time.

By that logic CONFIG_SMP should be "y" by default.

Now i find the name NR_CPUS a bit misleading it seems that
this should be MAX_CPUS but "legacy is as legacy does".

Using the names i prefer i would suggest in *config we
replace CONFIG_SMP with CONFIG_MAX_CPUS and give it a
default of 1. Then make CONFIG_SMP dependant on
CONFIG_MAX_CPUS > 1. That way we avoid adding yet another
option. KISS for the users.

J.W. Schultz Pegasystems Technologies
email address:

Remember Cernan and Schmitt
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.099 / U:1.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site