From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759564AbYHAUxR (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:53:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753281AbYHAUxF (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:53:05 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:37621 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753082AbYHAUxD (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2008 16:53:03 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , hpa , Dhaval Giani , Mike Travis , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1217583464-28494-1-git-send-email-yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:46:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1217583464-28494-1-git-send-email-yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> (Yinghai Lu's message of "Fri, 1 Aug 2008 02:37:28 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 24.130.11.59 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ****;Yinghai Lu X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Report: * 7.0 XM_URI_RBL URI's domain appears in surbl.xmission.com * [URIs: lkml.org] * -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG * -0.7 BAYES_20 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 5 to 20% * [score: 0.1616] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa02 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 XM_SPF_Neutral SPF-Neutral Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] dyn_array and nr_irqs support v2 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2 (built Thu, 03 Mar 2005 10:44:12 +0100) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mgr1.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Yinghai Lu writes: > Please check dyn_array support for x86 YH you have not addressed any of my core concerns and this exceeds my review limit. Unfortunately I don't feel like this is a productive process. My core concerns are: - You have not separated out and separately pushed the regression patch. So that we can fix the current rc release. Simply tuning NR_IRQS is all I feel comfortable with for fixing things in the post merge window period. - The generic code has no business with dealing with NR_IRQS sized arrays. Since we don't have a generic problem I don't see why we should have a generic dyn_array solution. - The dyn_array infrastructure does not provide for per numa node allocation of irq_desc structures, limiting NUMA scalability. - You appear to be papering over problems instead of digging in and actually fixing them. YH Here is what I was suggesting when the topic of killing NR_IRQs came up a week or so ago. http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/10/439 http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/10/532 Which essentially boils down to: - Removing NR_IRQS from the non-irq infrastructure code. - Add a config option for architectures that are not going to use an array - In the genirq code have a lookup function that goes from irq number to irq_desc *. The rest we should be able to handle in a arch dependent fashion. When we are done we should be able to create a stable irq number for msi interrupts that is something like: bus:dev:fun:vector_no which is 8+5+3+12=28 bits long. Eric