From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759610AbYB2Vax (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:30:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933620AbYB2V3h (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:29:37 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54747 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933591AbYB2V3g (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:29:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 22:29:08 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Paul Jackson , tglx@linutronix.de, oleg@tv-sign.ru, rostedt@goodmis.org, maxk@qualcomm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rientjes@google.com Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] cpuset: cpuset irq affinities Message-ID: <20080229212908.GM27212@elte.hu> References: <20080227222103.673194000@chello.nl> <1204311351.6243.130.camel@lappy> <20080229145516.4d96aeaa.pj@sgi.com> <1204319674.6243.145.camel@lappy> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204319674.6243.145.camel@lappy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Do these irqs have any special hardware affinity? Or are they just > > consumers of CPU cycles that can be jammed onto whatever CPU(s) > > we're willing to let be interrupted? > > Depends a bit, the genirq layer seems to allow for irqs that can't be > freely placed. But most of them can be given a free mask - /me looks @ > tglx/ingo. yes - and when they cannot be arbitrarily migrated we just dont move them (but still keep them attached to that cpuset). The affinity calls will just fail in that case. Might want to emit a kernel warning but that's all. (if then it's a hardware constraint) Ingo