RE: [Xen-devel] A question about CONFIG_SMP

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>]

Keir Fraser wrote:
> 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
> 

That's right. I think the right thing to do is to set CONFIG_SMP by
default forcing people to stabilize IA-64 Xen ASAP, rather than keeping
it UP only.

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel