From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
"Protasevich, Natalie" <Natalie.Protasevich@UNISYS.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: Make NR_IRQS configurable in Kconfig
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:26:07 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m1mzag9o8w.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060807194047.GM3691@stusta.de> (Adrian Bunk's message of "Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:40:48 +0200")
Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:53:35PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>...
>> --- a/arch/x86_64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86_64/Kconfig
>> @@ -384,6 +384,20 @@ config NR_CPUS
>> This is purely to save memory - each supported CPU requires
>> memory in the static kernel configuration.
>>
>> +config NR_IRQS
>> + int "Maximum number of IRQs (224-57344)"
>
> int "Maximum number of IRQs (224-57344)" depends on SMP
>
> This way, people with SMP=n will not see this question.
I doubt it will be interesting but it might be, it is certainly
well defined what happens when you have more irqs that a cpu
has irq destinations.
>> + range 224 57344
>> + default "4096" if SMP
>> + default "224" if !SMP
>
> Why not always
> default "224"
> ?
A couple of reasons.
- Things still need shaking out at the > 256 irq level and since
this is going into -mm it is reasonable to have a large default.
- It is silly to have a default that won't work on some hardware,
that we can support without unreasonable overhead.
- There are major simplicity gains to be had from a slight sparse
irq space.
- I haven't a clue what the irq numbers look like in the real world
that we should be supporting since there was code in x86_64 and
i386 to hack them up terribly. All I have a clue about are
the really big machines. So I wouldn't be surprised if there
were some small but I/O heavy machines that found 224 too limiting.
I know of at least one uniprocessor machine that would have used
almost all 224 irqs.
- I want people to realize that we can easily have more than 256 irqs.
With pure software interrupt sources and networking drivers allocating
one irq per cpu the chances of us using our maximum allotment of irqs
is much more likely in the next couple of years.
- 4096 is the number I expect distribution vendors will ship. Why set
a different default than what you expect most people will use?
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-07 22:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-07 15:26 Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 15:33 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 15:55 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 15:59 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-08-07 16:11 ` Protasevich, Natalie
2006-08-07 16:17 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-07 16:23 ` Protasevich, Natalie
2006-08-07 16:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 16:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 17:00 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-07 17:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 17:52 ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-08-07 17:30 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 17:55 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-08-07 18:16 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 18:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 19:04 ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-08-07 22:10 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-07 23:55 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-08 2:17 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-08 2:41 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-08 2:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-08-08 5:47 ` [PATCH] x86_64: Auto size the per cpu area Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-08 6:01 ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-08 6:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-08 6:01 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-08 6:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-08 6:48 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-08 7:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-08-08 5:09 ` [PATCH] x86_64: Make NR_IRQS configurable in Kconfig Paul Mackerras
2006-08-08 5:14 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-08 8:17 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-09 17:58 ` Luck, Tony
2006-08-09 18:25 ` Dave Hansen
2006-08-10 12:55 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-10 14:40 ` Andy Whitcroft
2006-08-10 14:53 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-07 19:40 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-07 22:26 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2006-08-07 23:06 ` Adrian Bunk
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=m1mzag9o8w.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=Natalie.Protasevich@UNISYS.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
/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
Powered by JetHome