[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081126081724.GK26036@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:17:24 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] irq: sparseirq enabling v2
* Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> >> impact: new feature sparseirq
> >
> >> v2: use pointer array instead of hash
> >
> > ok, this looks pretty good!
> >
> > A few details:
> >
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
> >> +#define set_ioapic_affinity_irq set_ioapic_affinity_irq_desc
> >> +#else
> >> +static void set_ioapic_affinity_irq(unsigned int irq, cpumask_t mask)
> >> +{
> >> + struct irq_desc *desc;
> >> +
> >> + desc = irq_to_desc(irq);
> >> +
> >> + set_ioapic_affinity_irq_desc(desc, mask);
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> >
> > i think this distinction can now go away?.
>
> i may miss sth in your previous mail. you said we may put full hash
> back later, so need keep those change to avoid lookup costs later.
full hash as in no NR_IRQS limit?
I dont think that's a good idea even in the far future: we can always
make NR_IRQS large enough, and turn the current array-of-pointers into
array-of-arrays-of-pointers scheme or an outright hash - but without
losing the fundamental abstraction that it's a 0..NR_IRQS array (just
accessed abstractly).
> also if we need move_irq_desc between node?
i'm not sure i understand. Do you mean we should deallocate and
reallocate the irq_desc to another node?
> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ
> >> + irq_want = nr_irqs;
> >> +#else
> >> + irq_want = NR_IRQS - 1;
> >> +#endif
> >
> > ditto. I think we dont want 'nr_irqs' anymore - just remain with
> > NR_IRQS, right?
> >
>
> nr_irqs is the total GSI number when sparseirq is used. so MSI irq
> will start from that. ...
ah, okay. I think we should renumber MSIs to the scheme Thomas
suggested, independently of CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ.
CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ should _only_ impact the irq_desc[] data structure:
it turns from a flat C array of irq_desc into an array of irq_desc
pointers.
No other semantic changes. Possibly all hidden away completely in the
irq-desc-array accessors.
> > Plus in a few more places.
> >
> > Please look at _every_ #ifdef or #if in your patch in a .c file
> > and ask the question: can we somehow in some way eliminate it and
> > convert it to some nice inline somewhere or eliminate it via some
> > other trick?
>
> will
thanks!
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