linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Make NR_IRQS configurable in Kconfig

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:	Mon, 07 Aug 2006 10:00:23 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC:	"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	"Protasevich, Natalie" <Natalie.Protasevich@...SYS.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Make NR_IRQS configurable in Kconfig

Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> 
> a) Because I would like to flush out bugs.
> b) Because I want a default that works for everyone.
> c) Because with MSI we have a potential for large irq counts on most systems.
> d) Because anyone who disagrees with me can send a patch and fix
>    the default.
> e) Because with the default number of cpus we can very close to needing
>    this many irqs in the worst case.
> f) This is much better than previous to my patch and setting NR_CPUS=255
>    and getting 8K IRQS.
> g) Because I probably should have been more inventive than copying the
>    NR_IRQS text, but when I did the wording sounded ok to me.
> 

Why not simply reserve 224*NR_CPUS IRQs? If you have 256 CPUs allocating 
64K IRQs should hardly matter :)

	-hpa
-
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/