[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009272236430.2416@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Arthur Kepner <akepner@....com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCHv2] x86/irq: round-robin distribution of irqs to cpus
w/in node
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Arthur Kepner wrote:
>
> (Fixed a small error with yesterday's version, and add x86@...nel.org
> to cc list.)
>
> SGI has encountered situations where particular CPUs run out of
> interrupt vectors on systems with many (several hundred or more)
> CPUs. This happens because some drivers (particularly the mlx4_core
> driver) select the number of interrupts they allocate based on the
> number of CPUs, and because of how the default irq affinity is used.
>
> Do psuedo round-robin distribution of irqs to CPUs within a node
> to avoid (or at least delay) running out of vectors on any particular
> CPU.
Sigh. Why is this a x86 specific problem ?
If we setup an irq on a node then we should set the affinity to the
target node in general. The round robin inside the node is really not
a problem unless you hit:
nr_irqs_per_node * nr_cpus_per_node > max_vectors_per_cpu
If that's the case then we probably have some more severe problems.
Again, I agree that we should target the irq to the node, but the fine
grained details can be done in user space.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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