Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [patch 2/2] x86, irq: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR instead of 0x1f | From | Suresh Siddha <> | Date | Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:24:57 -0800 |
| |
On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 23:19 -0800, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > > So change the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR to 0x20 and allow 0x21-0x2f to be > > > > used > > > > for device interrupts. 0x30-0x3f will be used for ISA interrupts (these > > > > also can be migrated in the context of IOAPIC and hence need to be at a > > > > higher > > > > priority level than IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR). > > > > > > I have troubles understanding what exactly this change is needed for > > > (i.e. what's the difference between using vectors 0x20-0x2f and 0x30-0x3f > > > as ExtINT interrupts, what's the gain from relocating them? -- they are > > > transparent to the APIC, so the exact priority level used does not matter > > > at all), but since I've been cc-ed, I have one question -- have you > > > verified that with the new arrangement the mixed interrupt mode (where > > > some interrupts come via the APIC and some via the 8259A PICs) still > > > works? > > > > > > > The difference is relevant when they are *not* invoked as ExtInt interrupts, > > but when used as IOAPIC interrupts it matters. > > Hmm, I/O APIC interrupts coming from ISA devices used not to differ from > ones from PCI devices and their vectors were evenly distributed across the > whole device range (one reason for this was the (in)famous Pentium APIC > limitation WRT multiple outstanding requests at the same priority level). > Now what you've written suggests this has changed and now ISA devices only > get vectors within a single priority level -- am I getting this right?
Even before the current changes (2.6.32 for example), for irq0 to irq15, irrespective of whether those irq's were handled by PIC or an IO-APIC, we were using 16 vectors with in a single priority level for these irq's.
Looking at the changelog, it looks this issue happened when we merged io_apic.c for 32-bit and 64-bit. 2.6.28 and beyond uses the same priority level for irq0..irq15
32bit kernels 2.6.27 and before has the behavior of evenly distributed vectors for all the io-apic irq's (legacy or non-legacy) but starting from 2.6.28, only for non-legacy irq's (16 and above) we try to spread the vectors uniformly across priority levels.
> If so, then to push my original question further: how are these vectors > allocated -- are they identity mapped with the corresponding i8259A > vectors? And how does it play with the Pentium APIC limitation (that may > actually apply to all the local APIC cores that use serial bus delivery; > I'm not sure) I mentioned above?
As we are using the code from 2.6.28 and no one noticed/complained about this issue for more than 1.5 years, probably the pentium APIC issue is not wide-spread.
If we care about this, I can post a fix (which is needed irrespective of the current changes).
thanks, suresh
| |