[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080914153522.GJ29290@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:35:22 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Dean Nelson <dcn@....com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Alan Mayer <ajm@....com>, jeremy@...p.org,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.lu@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] dynamically allocate arch specific system vectors
* Dean Nelson <dcn@....com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 12:39:22PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >
> > Although I am not at all convinced that dynamic allocation of
> > the vector number (instead of statically reserving it makes sense).
>
> We (SGI) need somewhere around eight vectors.
>
> There are two kernel modules, sgi-gru and sgi-xp (in drivers/misc),
> that each need two vectors. And there's the broadcast assist unit
> (BAU) that is involved in tlb shootdown on uv, which currently uses
> statically reserved vector 0xf8 (UV_BAU_MESSAGE -- see uv_bau_init()).
while i understand the UV_BAU_MESSAGE case (TLB flushes are special),
why does sgi-gru and sgi-xp need to go that deep? They are drivers, they
should be able to make use of an ordinary irq just like the other 2000
drivers we have do.
> I know of a debugger that also uses 0xf8 because it was previously
> available until UV_BAU_MESSAGE came along. The BAU would be happy with
> a dynamically allocated system vector. We have a couple of other
> things in the works that also need vectors.
which debugger is this?
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