 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS:
| To: | "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-) |
| 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= |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD542CAEC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| List-help: | <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
| List-id: | Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
| List-post: | <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
| List-subscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| References: | <516F50407E01324991DD6D07B0531AD542CAEC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Reply-to: | Christian.Limpach@xxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
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 anymore. christian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-), Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [RESUBMIT] [PATCH] xen, tools: pincpu use vcpu and cpumap_t, Christian Limpach |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-), Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] CONFIG_SMP or !CONFIG_SMP... that is the question. WAS: something about ia64 that nobody would read :-), Andrei Petrov |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
