[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B4E32B3.6090400@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:53:07 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
CC: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.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 01/13/2010 12:36 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
>
>> On 01/11/2010 05:52 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>
>>> After having the documentation quoted at me. I am having a distinct
>>> memory of one piece of documentation saying:
>>> "interrupts within a priority level can be delivered in any order"
>>>
>>> So I am guessing there is not any ordering of interrupts in the same
>>> priority level until they get to the local apic.
>>>
>>
>> There is no ordering of interrupts before they hit the local APIC, since
>> the local APIC is what would serialize them...
>
> The io apic serializes them, and sends them over either the 2-wire
> bus or the front side bus. How much serialization and prioritization
> happens at that point I am not certain, but some certainly happens
> before you get to the local apic.
>
>From the looks of the original 82093AA spec, the 2-wire bus did
round-robin between different APICs (including IOAPICs), and the IOAPIC
had no ordering guarantees whatsoever.
-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