this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
303 points (99.0% liked)

Technology

73698 readers
3243 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
303
Yes, you can have too many CPU cores - Ampere's 192-core chips break ARM64 Linux kernel in two-socket systems, company requests higher core count support (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DreadPotato@sopuli.xyz 34 points 2 years ago (8 children)

According to Phoronix, Ampere's new CPUs have so many cores that Linux doesn't support systems when two of Ampere's 192-core chips (384 total cores) are installed in a single server. For now, the ARM64 Linux kernel only supports systems with 256 cores or less. To fix the issue, Ampere has submitted a patch proposing that the Linux kernel core limit be raised to 512

If you're already at 384 cores in a dual-processor setup, isn't raising the limit to 512 too little? Why not just go for 1024 now that they're at it, especially since the method they proposed doesn't increase kernel image memory footprint.

[–] LennethAegis@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree, they are just going to hit the wall again way too fast. If the limit is 256 or 2^8, they should increase it to 65536 or 2^16. Now that's a limit that feels safer to leave at for many year to come.

[–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Or do what ietf did "We're running out of 32bit addresses, should we add some bits and call it an even 48? No! Let's double the number of addresses 96 fucking times!"

Start using 128bit for everything.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

If you have to solve a problem, do it in a way that solves it for good.

Max value of uint128 is ~340 undecillion (~3.4e38).

[–] jsh@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it fair to assume that those are more cores than there ever has and will be made?

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 years ago

Honestly, I think so.

load more comments (6 replies)