[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1bph9he9m.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:16:21 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
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\@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: [PATCH 2/2] x86: get more exact nr_irqs
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
>> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>>> first check with NR_VECTORS - FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR - 0x20
>>> aka minus exceptions and system vectors.
>>>
>>> NR_CPUS = 512, and nr_cpu_ids = 128
>>> will have NR_IRQS = 256 + 512 * 64 = 33024
>>>
>>> assume we have 20 intel ixgbe 6 port cards (with sriov and ixgbevf)
>>> 20 * 6 * 64 * 3 = 23040
>>>
>>> first will get:
>>> 128 * (256 - 64) = 24576
>>> then with nr_irqs_gsi will get
>>> (120 + 8 * 128 + 120 * 256) = 31864
>>>
>>> so 24576 will be used for nr_irqs.
>>>
>>> 24576 * 8 = 196608 bytes will be used for irq_desc_ptrs[]
>>>
>>> before this patch:
>>> have nr_irqs = 120 + 8 * 128 + 120 * 64 = 8824
>>> and irq_desc_ptrs[] is 70592
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
>>
>> I am lost. arch_probe_nr_irqs appears to be total nonsense.
>>
>> We have three concepts.
>> - The number of irq sources we can talk about. ( nr_irqs)
>> - The number of irqs we can possibly service. ((NR_VECTORS - 0x30) *nr_cpu_ids)
>> - The number of irqs we actually connected up to cards in the
>> system that we need to do something with.
>>
>> Why do we need to allocate arrays at all?
>>
>
> irq_desc is allocated dynamically.
>
> but irq_desc_ptrs is pointer array, it need to be allocated after
> nr_irqs is probed.
If we care about memory use efficiency let's replace irq_desc_ptrs
with a rbtree or a radix_tree. Something that moves the memory use
penalty onto those machines that have a lot of irqs.
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