Andi Kleen <[email protected]> writes:
>> 4k being a humble maximum is definitely a relative term here, but on the
>> system with "only" 64 or 128 processors the cpu*224 would be much higher
>> :) However, maybe CONFIG_TINY that Andi suggested would leverage this
>> number also. What do you think, Eric?
>
> Best would be something dynamic - kernels should be self tuning, not
> require that much CONFIG magic.
I agree. That is the way thing should be :
> Just PCI hotplug gives me headaches with this.
>
> Maybe we just need growable per CPU data.
This would require a growable NR_IRQS to fix. Something
that we don't have a good handle on at all. But at least
much less code cares.
If we killed the counters for each pair of cpu and irq this would
not involve the per cpu area at all. But we still have the one
static array of irqs. That will be more fun to get rid of.
Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
