[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45D600D0.9070602@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:06:56 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC] killing the NR_IRQS arrays.
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Well you shouldn't need to wait just run with a kernel with NR_IRQS >= 1024.
> 1024 is stretch but it isn't to bad. There are already x86 boxes that have
> more pins on their ioapics then that. So x86_64 and with this latest
> round of patches from Len Brown and I i386 should be able to support that.
>
Early Xen patches did just that, but there was general criticism about
the memory use. And in the paravirt_ops world, a large compile-time
static allocation is not really acceptable if its only needed by Xen.
But, hey, if you're OK with it I'll submit the patch ;)
> On the other side 1024 looks extremely limiting for exposing pci devices.
> If someone gets serious about pushing what is legal with MSI-X you may be
> in trouble. As a single device is allowed to have 4096 interrupts. Not
> that I can think of a user for so many but...
>
No, I think we'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
J
-
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