[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FE2071B.5040602@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:23:39 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: mingo@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, agordeev@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yinghai@...nel.org,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de
CC: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/apic] x86/apic: Try to spread IRQ vectors to different
priority levels
On 06/08/2012 07:50 AM, tip-bot for Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Commit-ID: 1bccd58bfffc5a677051937b332b71f0686187c1
> Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/1bccd58bfffc5a677051937b332b71f0686187c1
> Author: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
> AuthorDate: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:15:15 +0200
> Committer: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> CommitDate: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:44:28 +0200
>
> x86/apic: Try to spread IRQ vectors to different priority levels
>
> When assigning a new vector it is primarially done by adding 8
> to the previously given out vector number. Hence, two
> consequently allocated vector numbers would likely fall into the
> same priority level. Try to spread vector numbers to different
> priority levels better by changing the step from 8 to 16.
>
OK, stupid question: WHY?
In general, in Linux the random prioritization is actually a negative.
The only reason for the spreading by 8 is because of bugs/misfeatures in
old APIC implementations which made them handle more than two interrupts
per priority level rather inefficiently.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
--
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