[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] x86, irq: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR instead of 0x1f
    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

    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).


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-02-01 22:29    [W:0.022 / U:22.748 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site