[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5N0d9wcaiS538UWQ83E_HhXoWC8nMxVY__1+k@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 21:46:06 +0800
From: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [question] NR_IRQS in genirq
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Haojian Zhuang wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm using the latest kernel 2.6.37-rc1. Now I met some issues on genirq.
>>
>> 1. While SPARSE IRQ is enabled, nr_irqs may be larger than NR_IRQS.
>> But the allocated_irqs bitmap (kernel/irq/irqdesc.c) is restricted in
>> NR_IRQS. Is it an issue?
>
> Why can nr_irqs become larger? Is that a theoretical problem or did
> you run into this ?
>
>
Hi Thomas,
My hardware environment is ARM. Each machine description can specify
nr_irqs. In my implementation of PXA, NR_IRQS is fixed for SoC
internal IRQs. And there's some additional board IRQs, we arrange them
between NR_IRQS and nr_irqs. So nr_irqs will be larger than NR_IRQS if
board IRQs exists.
We use dynamic board IRQs since each machine has different
requirement. And CONFIG_HARDIRQ_SW_RESEND is occasionally, I actually
met issue in resend_irqs because of accessing bitmap memory out of
bound.
Do you mean that we shouldn't use SPARSE IRQ by this way?
Best Regards
Haojian
--
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