Patchwork pseries: double NR_CPUS in defconfig

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Nishanth Aravamudan
Date Sept. 12, 2012, 5:47 p.m.
Message ID <20120912174706.GE9269@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/183419/
State Accepted, archived
Commit be812195d8ac536a62cb1eb5c29b5f2fefefb621
Delegated to: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Headers show

Comments

Nishanth Aravamudan - Sept. 12, 2012, 5:47 p.m.
Anticipating growth in coming years, we should ensure we are getting a
good lead on testing.
    
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>
Stephen Rothwell - Sept. 13, 2012, 12:37 p.m.
Hi,

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:47:07 -0700 Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Anticipating growth in coming years, we should ensure we are getting a
> good lead on testing.

Most changes to pseries_defconfig are copied into ppc64_defconfig.
Should this one be as well?
Nishanth Aravamudan - Sept. 13, 2012, 6 p.m.
Hi Stephen,

On 13.09.2012 [22:37:39 +1000], Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:47:07 -0700 Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Anticipating growth in coming years, we should ensure we are getting
> > a good lead on testing.
> 
> Most changes to pseries_defconfig are copied into ppc64_defconfig.
> Should this one be as well?

Ah, I didn't realize that was the case, sorry. Yes, it probably does
make sense to do this change. Should I just send a follow-on patch?

Thanks,
Nish
Nishanth Aravamudan - Sept. 13, 2012, 6:03 p.m.
On 13.09.2012 [11:00:11 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> On 13.09.2012 [22:37:39 +1000], Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:47:07 -0700 Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Anticipating growth in coming years, we should ensure we are getting
> > > a good lead on testing.
> > 
> > Most changes to pseries_defconfig are copied into ppc64_defconfig.
> > Should this one be as well?
> 
> Ah, I didn't realize that was the case, sorry. Yes, it probably does
> make sense to do this change. Should I just send a follow-on patch?

Actually, ppc64_defconfig doesn't currently define CONFIG_NR_CPUS.
NR_CPUS' powerpc Kconfig allows 2-8192 already, so given the current
state, I'm not sure any further patch is necessary?

Thanks,
Nish

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig b/arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig
index 1f65b3c..a0e0e53 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/configs/pseries_defconfig
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@  CONFIG_PPC64=y
 CONFIG_ALTIVEC=y
 CONFIG_VSX=y
 CONFIG_SMP=y
-CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1024
+CONFIG_NR_CPUS=2048
 CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=y
 CONFIG_SYSVIPC=y
 CONFIG_POSIX_MQUEUE=y