lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] x86, irq: use 0x20 for the IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR instead of 0x1f
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Suresh Siddha wrote:

> After talking to some more folks inside intel (Peter Anvin, Asit Mallick),
> the safest option (for future compatibility etc) seen was to use vector 0x20
> for IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR instead of using vector 0x1f (which is documented as
> reserved vector in the Intel IA32 manuals).
>
> Also we don't need to reserve the entire privilege level (all 16 vectors in
> the priority bucket that IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR falls into), as the
> x86 architecture (section 10.9.3 in SDM Vol3a) specifies that with in the
> priority level, the higher the vector number the higher the priority.
> And hence we don't need to reserve the complete priority level 0x20-0x2f for
> the IRQ migration cleanup logic.
>
> 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?

Maciej


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-01-24 06:55    [W:0.103 / U:0.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site