[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4902135F.6080300@freescale.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:26:39 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
CC: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>,
LinuxPPC-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
maxk@...lcomm.com
Subject: Re: default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP
PPC based systems)
Chris Snook wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> So why not just have x86 startup code set irq_default_affinity =
>>> CPU_MASK_ALL than?
>>
>> That doesn't really solve the problem, as a user could still manually
>> set an invalid affinity. The MPIC driver should reduce the affinity
>> itself to what the hardware can handle.
>
> Does the MPIC code actually allow that to happen?
As far as I can tell, though I haven't tested it.
> I can't quite tell, but I noticed this:
>
> [csnook@...noulli sysdev]$ fgrep '#ifdef CONFIG_' mpic.c | sort -u
> #ifdef CONFIG_IRQ_ALL_CPUS
> #ifdef CONFIG_MPIC_BROKEN_REGREAD
> #ifdef CONFIG_MPIC_U3_HT_IRQS
> #ifdef CONFIG_MPIC_WEIRD
> #ifdef CONFIG_PCI_MSI
> #ifdef CONFIG_PM
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC32 /* XXX for now */
> #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_DCR
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
>
> Do any of those config options (or combinations thereof) imply an MPIC
> that can't handle an IRQ masked to multiple CPUs? If so, this can be
> fixed rather easily at build time, without having to muck around with
> arch-specific initialization code.
I don't think so, and in any case it should be detected at runtime from
the device tree.
-Scott
--
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