mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@redhat.com>
Cc: maxk@qualcomm.com, LinuxPPC-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	linux-kernel Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP PPC based systems)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:39:05 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <36A821E7-7F37-42AF-9A05-7205FCBF89EE@kernel.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4901E6FB.4070200@redhat.com>


On Oct 24, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Chris Snook wrote:

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> It appears the default IRQ affinity changes from being just cpu 0  
>> to all cpu's.  This breaks several PPC SMP systems in which only a  
>> single processor is allowed to be selected as the destination of  
>> the IRQ.
>> What is the right answer in fixing this?  Should we:
>>    cpumask_t irq_default_affinity = 1;
>> instead of
>>    cpumask_t irq_default_affinity = CPU_MASK_ALL?
>
> On those systems, perhaps, but not universally.  There's plenty of  
> hardware where the physical topology of the machine is abstracted  
> away from the OS, and you need to leave the mask wide open and let  
> the APIC figure out where to map the IRQs.  Ideally, we should  
> probably make this decision based on the APIC, but if there's no PPC  
> hardware that uses this technique, then it would suffice to make  
> this arch-specific.


What did those systems do before this patch?  Its one thing to expose  
a mask in the ability to change the default mask in /proc/irq/ 
default_smp_affinity.  Its another (and a regression in my opinion) to  
change the mask value itself.

As for making it ARCH specific, that doesn't really help since not all  
PPC hw has the limitation I spoke of.  Not even all MPIC (in our  
cases) have the limitation.

- k

  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-24 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-10-24 12:45 Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 15:17 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 15:39   ` Kumar Gala [this message]
2008-10-24 16:09     ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 16:36       ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 17:39         ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 18:18           ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 18:26             ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 17:51         ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 23:18     ` David Miller
2008-11-19  6:43       ` Max Krasnyansky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=36A821E7-7F37-42AF-9A05-7205FCBF89EE@kernel.crashing.org \
    --to=galak@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=csnook@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maxk@qualcomm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®