[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B479F9D.7060907@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:11:57 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
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 12:06 PM, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> (256 - 32 - 16 - system_vectors) * cpu_count + 16
>
> the 16 is legacy from IRQ0 to 15 has domain with all cpus set.
>
... assuming you're on a platform with a legacy PIC. I would like to
see the legacy PIC hard-coded assumptions to go away, and instead be
done as runtime allocations on the relevant platforms.
> some interface in /proc/interrupts need it to make sure sth in sequence.
I can't even parse this sentence, never mind figuring out what it would
mean. Certainly there is a better way to do that?
-hpa
--
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