Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86: update nr_irqs according cpu num | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | Date | Fri, 08 Jan 2010 12:20:52 -0800 |
| |
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Eric W. Biederman > <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: >> Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org> writes: >> >>> that is max number on run time. >> >> Ouch! Unless I misread this code this will leave nr_irqs at >> NR_IRQS_LEGACY. aka 16. > > nr_irqs is set to NR_IRQS before.
Yep my mistake.
>> Let's do something stupid and simple. >> nr_irqs = nr_cpus_ids * 256; /* Semi-arbitrary number */ >> >> Ideally we would set "nr_irqs = 0x7fffffff;" but we have just enough >> places using nr_irqs that I think those loops would get painful if we >> were to do that. > > or you need have NR_IRQS = NR_CPUS * 256 at first, > > and then make nr_irqs = nr_cpu_ids * 224 ?
The important part is that NR_IRQS become an arbitrary number larger than we can strictly support.
Based on my quick look the bad offenders (aka static sized arrays of NR_IRQS) all look at NR_IRQS not nr_irqs. So I don't see a point in having nr_irqs < NR_IRQS.
So let's just kill arch_probe_nr_irqs() on x86.
Then we can worry about things like fixing xen and the interrupt remapping code to not having NR_IRQS sized arrays.
Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |