On 10/31/2013 08:46 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> On 10/30/2013 07:50 PM, David Strauss wrote: >>> I was, indeed, drawing an arbitrary line, but we must draw the line somewhere. >>> Maybe Fedora 23+ have it set far higher. It's easy to adapt over time to support >>> the high end of commodity servers while still being desktop-friendly; we don't >>> have a long support window. >>> >> >> Fair enough, but my question is, then, why 512? If it is completely arbitrary >> why not jump it to a high number that people have requested before and be done >> with it? Even 1024 would be acceptable to the HPC users I've talked with FWIW. >> >> Josh, would you be okay with 1024? > > Maybe? That seems like it would be fairly reasonable, but knowing > what the overhead numbers are would help. To be clear, right now we > have things set thusly for NR_CPUS: > > arm=8 > ppc32=4 > ppc64/ppc64p7=1024 > s390x=64 > i686=32 > x86_64=128 > > I believe our specific discussion here is about x86_64. I don't think > we're going to change i686 to anything higher than what it's set at > right now. Agreed -- I think we can safely say 32 is good enough for i686 :). Let me do some work on getting you numbers for x86_64 for 128 vs 1024. I'll try and get this done in the next few days ... I'm still coming off the 2013 WORLD SERIES CHAMPION BOSTON RED SOX high. :) P. > > josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
