[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061213201944.GA3784@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:19:44 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs
* Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> > also there might be hardware that can only route a given IRQ to a
> > subset of CPUs. While setting set_affinity allows the
> > irqbalance-daemon to 'probe' this mask, it's a far from optimal API.
>
> I agree, I am just arguing that adding another awkward interface to
> the current situation does not really make the situation better, and
> it increases our support burden.
well, please suggest a better interface then.
> For a bunch of this it is arguable that the way to go is simply to
> parse the irq type in /proc/interrupts. All of the really weird cases
> will have a distinct type there. This certainly captures the MSI-X
> case. There is still a question of how to handle the NUMA case but...
... so parsing /proc/interrupts should be that interface? That is a
historically very volatile interface. It's mostly human-parsed, and we
frequently twiddle it - genirq changed it too. In v2.6.19 we had fasteio
instead of fasteoi there.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists