lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 - irq vector assignment
On 09/21/2010 02:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>> arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 5 +++++
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> Index: linux/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c 2010-09-17 13:00:19.164638447 -0500
>>> +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c 2010-09-17 13:00:23.448595373 -0500
>>> @@ -3253,6 +3253,11 @@ unsigned int create_irq_nr(unsigned int
>>> desc_new = move_irq_desc(desc_new, node);
>>> cfg_new = desc_new->chip_data;
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
>>> + if (node >= 0 && __assign_irq_vector(new, cfg_new, node_to_cpumask_map[node]) == 0)
>>> + irq = new;
>>> + else
>>> +#endif
>>> if (__assign_irq_vector(new, cfg_new, apic->target_cpus()) == 0)
>>> irq = new;
>>> break;
>>
>> target_cpus() for uv_x and x2apic phys mode all have cpu_online_mask()
>>
>> so we should get the vector for other cpus. aka __assign_irq_vector()
>> should not fail. unless you have so many irq > nr_irqs.
>
> Did you even read the changelog ? It's not about "should".
>
> All CPU0 vectors are assigned already just because the current code
> takes the first cpu in the target_cpus mask regardless of the node on
> which the irq_desc is allocated. That's crap. Why do we allocate
> irq_desc on node and leave the vector assigned to node(cpu0) ?

ok, i got it. vectors from cpus on node0 are used by devices from others nodes.
later devices from node0 can not get vector from node0.

Yinghai


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-22 01:17    [W:0.036 / U:1.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site