![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
>> > Yes, our feeling it is possible to handle all non-NUMAQ >> systems pretty >> > generically in terms of APIC setup and interrupt routing. We can use >> > either logical clustered or physical destination modes. But >> for NUMAQ >> > systems, interrupt routing has to know about the local >> nodes and have >> > necessary logic to do the routing withing local node. >> >> NUMA-Q doesn't have to know about the local nodes. I set it up to use >> physical delivery broadcast, which is a node-local broadcast ... gave >> me NUMA affinity for free. I could also use logical clustered >> (p3 style) >> addressing, and work out all the node locality, but I don't >> see the point. > > I actually meant interrupt distribution (rather than interrupt routing). > AFAIK, interrupt distribution right now assumes flat logical setup and > tries to distribute the interrupt. And is disabled in case of clustered > APIC mode. I was just thinking loud, about the changes interrupt > distribution code should have for systems using clustered APIC/physical > mode (NUMAQ and non-NUMAQ). Actually, if you're talking about irq_balance, that needs fixing for all NUMA systems to get affininity, not just NUMA-Q. It then needs an abstraction layer to do "program the IO-APIC with a cpu_bitmask" that's different for each apic addressing mode used. M. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.504 / U:0.280 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||