[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1my84bpuq.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 01:16:29 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
Cc: "Yinghai Lu" <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>,
"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
"the arch\/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/acpi: don't ignore I/O APICs justbecause there's no local APIC
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com> writes:
>>>> Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com> 19.06.09 07:32 >>>
>>doesn't XEN support per cpu irq vector?
>
> No.
>
>>got sth from XEN 3.3 / SLES 11
>>
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: PCI INT A -> GSI 95 (level, low) -> IRQ 95
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: setting latency timer to 64
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: Intel(R) Gigabit Ethernet Network Connection
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: eth9: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) 00:21:28:3a:d8:0e
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: eth9: PBA No: ffffff-0ff
>>igb 0000:81:00.0: Using MSI-X interrupts. 4 rx queue(s), 4 tx queue(s)
>>vendor=8086 device=3420
>>(XEN) irq.c:847: dom0: invalid pirq 94 or vector -28
>>igb 0000:81:00.1: PCI INT B -> GSI 94 (level, low) -> IRQ 94
>>igb 0000:81:00.1: setting latency timer to 64
>>(XEN) physdev.c:87: dom0: map irq with wrong vector -28
>>map irq failed
>>(XEN) physdev.c:87: dom0: map irq with wrong vector -28
>>map irq failed
>>
>>the system need a lot of MSI-X normally.. with current mainline tree
>>kernel, it will need about 360 irq...
>
> Do you mean 360 connected devices, or just 360 IO-APIC pins (most of
> which are usually unused)? In the latter case, devices using MSI (i.e. not
> using high numbered IO-APIC pins) should work, while devices connected
> to IO-APIC pins numbered 256 and higher won't work in SLE11 as-is.
> This limitation got fixed recently in the 3.5-unstable tree, though. The
> 256 active vectors limit, however, continues to exist, so the former case
> would still not be supported by Xen.
Good question. I know YH had a system a few years ago that exceeded 256 vectors.
But in this case it really could be either.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists