[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4BBEBA.4060403@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:13:46 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86, apic: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR instead
of 0x1f
On 01/11/2010 04:06 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's what I said. My question was to Suresh what enforces that
>> in the case of his patch, which moves the legacy range into the middle
>> of the device vectors.
>
> It's not the used_vector bitmap. That range will appear as used on all
> the cpu's and hence we won't be allocating it for anything else.
>
OK, fair enough.
> Now the question is: for non-legacy (io-apic) case, instead of reserving
> this range for all the cpu's, does it make sense to generalize like any
> other vector?
It sounds like something that we could experiment with -- after
switching an IRQ to ioapic mode, make it a movable interrupt. It
*seems* it should work, but it's scary stuff to muck with.
Eric, do you see any reason why it wouldn't work? I truly couldn't
understand your previous remark, especially the bit about "it is
dangerous to play lowest priority irq games in that range".
-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