On 11/06/2013 11:21 AM, Peter Robinson 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. > > Even with x86_64 I'm not sure most individual HPC devices have that > many cores from my experience. Most tend to go for most bang for your > buck and have more nodes. In the enterprise server space the > cores/threads tend to top out at around 160 at the moment (8 sockets, > 10 cores, 2 threads). The exception here tends to be the few massive > NUMA box shippers and I'm not sure many of those would be looking at > Fedora, and would likely need custom kernels anyway. The request for 1024 came from an HPC NUMA box company. HPC users *want* to test the Fedora environment on their systems. P. > > Peter _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
