[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B47A085.1010703@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:15:49 -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 12:10 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> I don't know if we ever actually perform vector sharing. The only case
> I recall where the code could share vectors is if the firmware tables
> told us to irq sources were the same interrupt. I don't think that
> happens. We do have the remains of support for vector sharing
> in the code but I don't think it is utilized. MSI interrupts certainly
> can not share vectors.
>
We probably will need to support that at some point, though, simply
because it's not all that hard to construct a system in which there are
more MSI-X interrupts than there are possible vectors in the system.
Until then we can do 224 * nr_cpus_ids, but it's still not the right thing.
> Yes. It was enough of a pain the first pass at it that we wound
> up with nr_irqs, a value that can vary at boot time.
>
> Once YH's radix tree changes get it in. A war on NR_IRQS and nr_irqs
> seems appropriate.
Agreed.
-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