Yes indeed. We could push to 128 no problem. I think Intel's only concern is
that 64 is as much as they test currently.
 -- Keir
On 07/08/2009 11:02, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I think there's little point in having both have the same limit. I'd rather
> question whether the limit shouldn't be pushed up higher for x86-64.
>
> Jan
>
>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 07.08.09 11:52 >>>
> Shall we just bump it for i386 too?
>
> -- Keir
>
> On 07/08/2009 10:37, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> By far a lot of systems are with more sockets (>=4), more cores (>=8),
>> meanwhile with HyperThread, so enlarge the default NR_CPUS would easier the
>> build for more threads systems.
>> 
>> Jimmy
>> 
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> Enlarge default NR_CPUS to 64 for x86_64.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Gang <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> diff -r b9cdcf502aa3 xen/include/asm-x86/config.h
>> --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h Thu Aug 06 11:14:48 2009 +0100
>> +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/config.h Fri Aug 07 14:54:06 2009 +0800
>> @@ -49,7 +49,11 @@
>> #ifdef MAX_PHYS_CPUS
>> #define NR_CPUS MAX_PHYS_CPUS
>> #else
>> +#ifdef __i386__
>> #define NR_CPUS 32
>> +#else
>> +#define NR_CPUS 64
>> +#endif
>> #endif
>> 
>> #ifdef __i386__
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel 
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel