lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 26 Jun 2014 06:13:39 +0000
From:	"Zhangbo (Oscar)" <>
To:	"" <>
CC:	"Huangpeng (Peter)" <>,
	Yanxiaodan <>,
	"Zhoujian (jay, Euler)" <>,
	Luonengjun <>,
	"Huangweidong (C)" <>,
	Yanqiangjun <>,
	"Zhaoyanbin (A)" <>,
	Suresh Siddha <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <>,
	Alexander Gordeev <>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <>
Subject: X86/irq: failed to assign vectors from CPU0

	Msi or Msi-x interrupts assign vectors from a CPU while the number of CUPs is more than 8. __assign_irq_vector() is responsible for assigning vectors from low-numbered CPUs by default. 
	If there are a lot of Msi or Msi-x interrupts, it will cause the low-numbered CPUs out of vectors, so the subsequent interrupts will be failed to allocate vectors from these CPUs. 
	What is the consideration of preferentially assigning vectors from low-numbered CPUs? How about assigning vectors from the CPUs which have the maximum number of unused vectors?
	Thank you in advance.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists