linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/4] dynamically allocate arch specific system vectors

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2008 10:24:48 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Dean Nelson <dcn@....com>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Alan Mayer <ajm@....com>, jeremy@...p.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.lu@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] dynamically allocate arch specific system vectors


* Dean Nelson <dcn@....com> wrote:

> > while i understand the UV_BAU_MESSAGE case (TLB flushes are 
> > special), why does sgi-gru and sgi-xp need to go that deep? They are 
> > drivers, they should be able to make use of an ordinary irq just 
> > like the other 2000 drivers we have do.
> 
> The sgi-gru driver needs to be able to allocate a single irq/vector 
> pair for all CPUs even those that are not currently online. The sgi-xp 
> driver has similar but not as stringent needs.

why does it need to allocate a single irq/vector pair? Why is a regular 
interrupt not good?

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/