[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610071255480.3952@g5.osdl.org>
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:57:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Rajesh Shah <rajesh.shah@...el.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@....de>,
"Protasevich, Natalie" <Natalie.Protasevich@...SYS.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19-rc1 genirq causes either boot hang or "do_IRQ: cannot
handle IRQ -1"
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> it seems the right mix at this time is to have the software select the
> package, and the hardware pick the core within the package.
I think that sounds like a fairly good approach.
Software obviously can make the "rough" selections, it's the fine-grained
ones that are harder (and might need to be done at a frequency that just
makes it impractical).
So yes, having software say "We want to steer this particular interrupt to
this L3 cache domain" sounds eminently sane.
Having software specify which L1 cache domain it wants to pollute is
likely just crazy micro-management.
Linus
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists