linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i386 IOAPIC: de-fang IRQ compression

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]

Message-ID: <m1eje0va0r.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>
Date:	Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:20:52 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	"Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@...il.com>
Cc:	"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i386 IOAPIC: de-fang IRQ compression

"Natalie Protasevich" <protasnb@...il.com> writes:

> I think we counted them in the order of 1400 external IRQs (actual
> ioapics/slots plus possible on-card bridges), and yes numbers for used
> IRQs were close to 250. Actual customer configurations could've big
> bigger, I don't have such data.
>
>> In particular is a large NR_IRQS plus dynamic vector allocation
>> sufficient for all cases you know about?
>
> Yes, since x86_64 boxes never had a problem once dynamic vectors were
> incorporated.

I was wondering if we could avoid making the vectors per cpu and still be
in good shape on x86_32.  From your description it looks like we can't
quite support everything on x86_32 if we don't do the per cpu vector
thing.  However we will likely have everything interesting supported.

Eric
--
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/