[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511161608250.3761@nanos>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 16:09:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@...tec.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jason@...edaemon.net,
marc.zyngier@....com, jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com,
ralf@...ux-mips.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] genirq: Add a new generic IPI reservation code to
irq core
On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 11/07/2015 01:31 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > > +
> > > + /* always allocate a virq per cpu */
> > > + nr_irqs = ipi_mask_weight(dest);
> > That's not really a good assumption. Not all architectures need
> > seperate interrupt numbers / descriptors because they can allocate
> > from a per cpu interrupt space. We really want to handle that here as
> > well. So we need a flag in the IPI domain which tells us whether that
> > allocation needs to be weight(desc) or 1.
>
> OK. But is it bad to always allocate the weight? I thought allocating virqs is
> cheap, or maybe not?
It's wrong to allocate the descriptors in the case of per cpu
interrupts. Aside of wasting memory its not representing what the
hardware does.
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