[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009280003300.2416@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 00:12:55 +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:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:46:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > ...
> > Sigh. Why is this a x86 specific problem ?
> >
>
> It's obviously not. But we're particularly seeing it on x86
> systems, so an x86-specific fix would address our problem.
Even more sigh.
> > If we setup an irq on a node then we should set the affinity to the
> > target node in general.
>
> OK.
>
> > .... 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
> >
>
> No, I don't think that's true.
>
> The problem we're seeing is that one driver asks for a large
> number of interrupts (on no CPU in particular). And because of the
It does it for a node, dammit. Otherwise your patch would be
absolutely useless.
> > > + if ((node != -1) && alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_mask, GFP_ATOMIC)) {
> way that the vectors are initially assigned to CPUs (in
> __assign_irq_vector()), a particular CPU can have all its vectors
> consumed.
Stop selling me crap already.
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