From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754009AbZESL6s (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 07:58:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752949AbZESL6m (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 07:58:42 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.218.174]:33736 "EHLO mail-bw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752305AbZESL6l (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2009 07:58:41 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=rNJNAE/7XifVpHr+cepj1q81PBTS4YrfJT8GAs9rrZxVqsai8h9XZPnt0R8evhdukc aFdL8dVgMwxlMEi3edk0j/ffdNs84Rb+HF5QRyq+PPAXaqk7g8ZCL4akWryh6NSZJgk2 CrrPjHyOFOikZWr0uGqS94PYXtoaX4gDu6vvo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:58:41 +0200 Message-ID: <29f1ba300905190458y44c8aadeuc8ff914e09105a09@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Feasibility study: Linux on core 0, using other cores as worker cores. Octeon II From: linux kernel To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, This might seem as an unusal feasibility question, but I would like to discuss this here at LKML to hear you views on this matter. The idea would be to build a IBM cell blade lookalike architecture, using full blown linux on core 0, using the other cores as worker threads. Possible target CPUs are Octeon II with 32 cores or more. The main goal for this would be to reduce interrupt latency for worker cores, having them run possibly bare-bone with an IPC method between core 0 and worker cores. probably DMA and HW IRQs. Is there an existing system design in the kernel already that I can expand/use ? Perhaps expanding/porting the cell blade IPC method. What would you guys think would be the most efficient approach(and perhaps would be acceptable to the LK maintainers for merging at a later stage :) ) ? Best Regards, David