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

RE: [Xen-devel] A question about CONFIG_SMP

  • To: "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 18:31:10 +0800
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:31:44 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcY4XWIntXP1DwvoQX6coimLWOa+CgABmwTA
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] A question about CONFIG_SMP

>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2006年2月23日 17:47
>On 23 Feb 2006, at 08:51, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> Just a curious question, does anyone still care xen/UP? If yes, current
>> xen-unstable.hg
>> failed to build quickly after undef CONFIG_SMP since many structures
>> include types
>> defined only when CONFIG_SMP is on.
>> Just realize this issue when cleanup some IA64 code recently, where
>> CONFIG_SMP is still unstable and thus UP only.
>> Is there any benefit to have xen/UP? Reducing image size is the
>> immediate answer in my head...
>It's not supported for xen/x86 at least. Dynamically adding LOCK
>prefixes if the system turns out to be multiprocessor is the only
>optimisation I think would be worthwhile. But really
>multi-processor/core/thread is what we care about.
>  -- Keir

Yep, agree. It's just raised out in case anyone has some special/meaningful 
usage model coming. :-)


Xen-devel mailing list



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