[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1my0thelq.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:09:05 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.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
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> 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.
>>
>
> Almost makes one want to abuse 0x1f for that. Although 0x00..0x1f are
> reserved for exceptions, the APICs range down to 0x10, and well, when
> 0x1f ends up actually getting used as an exception vector that we
> support, then we can trivially change that. In the meantime it would
> actually make use of an otherwise-unusable APIC priority level.
An optimization like that (with a big fat comment) seems reasonable
to me.
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