[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B42362F.7040302@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:40:47 -0800
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
NetDEV list <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86: get back 15 vectors
On 01/04/2010 08:18 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
>
> This patch is wrong.
>
>> between FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR (0x20) and FIRST_DEVICE_VECTOR (0x41)
>>
>> for 0x20 and 0x2f, we are safe be used_vectors will prevent it to use used one.
>
> We can not use any of 0x20 - 0x2f for ioapic irqs. We need the entire
> priority level to ensure that the irq move cleanup ipi is of a lower
> priority.
>
>> also try to reuse 0x30 to 0x3f after smp_affinity for irq[0,15] is changed to other cpu.
>
> There may be a point with 0x30 to 0x3f as I recall when those irqs come through a legacy
> pic we need to reserve those vectors on all cpus.
ok, I see.
any reason that we can not use 0x40?
Thanks
Yinghai
--
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