lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: APIC version
Date
As for apic_version[] indexing in general, I am also for smp_processor_id,
although it could take a few changes in apic.c, mpparse.c, and especially
smpboot.c. Speaking of es7000, its APIC ID's are always huge, defined by
fixed topology. For those like us, the array would shrink from MAX_APICS
(256) to NR_CPUS (32, maybe 64). I wonder if it would do any good for (true)
NUMA.

--Natalie

-----Original Message-----
From: Zwane Mwaikambo [mailto:zwane@holomorphy.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:53 PM
To: Nakajima, Jun
Cc: Protasevich, Natalie; Martin J. Bligh; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; William
Lee Irwin III; Christoph Hellwig; James Cleverdon; Linux Kernel
Subject: RE: APIC version


On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, Nakajima, Jun wrote:

> The entries in acpi_version[] are indexed by the APIC id, not
> smp_processor_id(). So you can overwrite acpi_version[] for a different
> processor.

Is it possible to use smp_processor_id instead to avoid wasting memory
for the sparse APIC id case?

Zwane
--
function.linuxpower.ca
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.032 / U:0.608 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site