[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-)

  • To: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>
  • From: Christian Limpach <christian.limpach@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 21:01:11 +0100
  • Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 11 May 2005 20:00:45 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=fjXjqAeR2qv46atV2N/flYQ7TrV6It3HBUtXK3Y5b1xQRyCvfkGN7FAKtRRIuMhjtIpPw5jbQzN9C7AfsfUdVaNGnij3G/JC8gTNBkhbslxQgE9gXRiyVtoKfxFegCqUn4PLG+y4q5So/fw6Vfz91ahkEP4YCfQunYQRl3ac9kA=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

On 5/11/05, Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
<dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Ian Pratt [mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > It's daft that we even have a CONFIG_SMP option in Xen. It spends most
> > of its time broken because no-one using x86 builds it, and you won't
> > even be able to buy any non SMP hardware before long...
> >
> > I'd vote for expunging CONFIG_SMP.
> I've heard its not uncommon when debugging nasty problems on Linux
> to turn off SMP as it simplifies the world considerably.

I would either run on non-SMP hardware, use the nosmp option or if
that's gone, just nobble the code that discovers multiple CPUs -- all
these are definitely preferable to compiling Xen without CONFIG_SMP
since that might change the code so much that the bug might not occur


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.