On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:18:07AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Andi Kleen wrote: > >>> > >> *Ahem* virtual machines *ahem*... > > > > And? Even there's not that big typically. > > > > The traditional problem was just for 128 NR_CPUs kernel were nothing > > was sized based on machine capacity. > > > > Also on large systems the VMs shouldn't be sized for full capacity. > > > > We have already have cases where the "possible" CPUs have eaten up the > entire vmalloc area on 32 bits. In real use. It's a real problem. That's hard to believe or a serious bug/misconfiguration somewhere. Each per CPU data should be <100k (let's say 200k with some slack for modules), so to fill vmalloc you would need hundreds of CPUs, which a 32bit kernel doesn't really support anyways because it doesn't support enough memory for that many CPUs. Perhaps you had firmware/hypervisor who passed a gigantic impossible value here? If yes thy -Andi -- ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
