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
next prev parent 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®