[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:0.055 / U:3.308 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site