[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] i386: Per node IDT
    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Brian Gerst wrote:

    > Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
    > > On Sun, 11 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > > Why per node? Why not go the whole way and make it per CPU?
    > > >
    > > > I would also not define it statically, but allocate it at boot time
    > > > in node local memory.
    > >
    > >
    > > I went per node so that it would be minimal/zero impact for the no-node
    > > case, it would also simplify hotplug cpu since once a cpu in a node goes
    > > down, we still have other participating processors capable of handling its
    > > devices without having to do too much migration work. I'll definitely
    > > incorporate the node local allocations however, for some i386 systems we
    > > might be forced to stick some additional IDTs on node 0 since the IDTR will
    > > only take 32bit addresses and we could end up with only highmem on some
    > > nodes.
    > Doesn't the IDTR take a virtual address? It has to or else the f00f bug fix
    > wouldn't work.

    Yes you're right, i wasn't quite awake when i replied, thanks for
    correcting that.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-11 17:25    [W:0.025 / U:39.208 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site