[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48D1AA62.6020601@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:09:54 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>, Dean Nelson <dcn@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <Yinghai.lu@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] dynamically allocate arch specific system vectors
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> It is one vector for each cpu.
>>
>> It is more efficient for software if the vector # is the same for all cpus
> Why? Especially in terms of irq counting that would seem to lead to cache
> line conflicts.
>
>> but the software/hardware can support a unique vector for each cpu. This
>> assumes, of course, that the driver can determine the irq->vector mapping for
>> each cpu.
>
> That sounds like you have a non-standard MSI-X vector. You certainly have all of
> the same properties. At which point create_irq() sounds like what you want.
>
> One irq per cpu, per device.
>
> It is the trend. Don't worry all of the high performance drivers are doing it.
> That is the path that will be optimized.
>
In particular, it's just another interrupt type. We already have quite
a few of those, from XT-PIC to the various IOAPIC ones, to MSI and MSI-X.
Just treating these as variants of MSI seems to me to make most sense, too.
-hpa
--
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