![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'm wondering, could we go with Thomas' temporary patch that disables > sky2 MSI if CONFIG_PM is enabled - we could revert that after 2.6.20. > It's not like MSI is a life and death feature. On IO-APIC systems > vectors are abundant and in any case we share irqs just fine. The true > advantage of MSI is minimal. (MSI-X has the potential to be better by > being message based, but in reality it still goes through the full IRQ > layer.) MSI might be useful on really, really large systems - but i > really hope those really large systems dont rely on CONFIG_PM. Meanwhile > Thomas' patch maximizes the amount of working hardware (it has the > chance to produce working systems in 100% of the cases) - which is a few > orders of magnitude more important than IRQ management micro-costs. Am i > missing anything? Sharing irqs /sucks/. I routinely have to fight a USB device dying, because the ATA device is causing an interrupt storm, or vice versa. /Very/ common headache. Other than that, they use a tiny bit fewer CPU cycles, and allow simplification of the interrupt handler (saving another few CPU cycles). The biggest benefit is (a) for hardware designers, where MSI means a cleaner h/w design, and (b) preparation of drivers and the kernel systems for MSI-only hardware. At present only high end hardware is MSI-only (like infiniband), but that's the future direction. Jeff - 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: 2007-01-30 07:41 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||