[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4785C3.4030505@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:21:39 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86: update nr_irqs according cpu num
On 01/08/2010 11:11 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org> writes:
>
>> that is max number on run time.
>
> Ouch! Unless I misread this code this will leave nr_irqs at
> NR_IRQS_LEGACY. aka 16.
>
> Let's do something stupid and simple.
> nr_irqs = nr_cpus_ids * 256; /* Semi-arbitrary number */
This would be 1048576 on the biggest machines we currently support.
Now, the number of IRQ *vectors* is limited to
(224-system vectors)*(cpu count), so one could argue that if there is
anything that is not semi-arbitrary it would be that number, but that
doesn't account for vector sharing.
Do we have any place which requires nr_irqs to be *stable*, or can we
simply treat it as a high water mark for IRQ numbers used?
> Ideally we would set "nr_irqs = 0x7fffffff;" but we have just enough
> places using nr_irqs that I think those loops would get painful if we
> were to do that.
Ideally we should presumably get rid of nr_irqs completely?
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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