Re: [RFC][PATCH] i386: Per node IDT

[Zwane Mwaikambo <zwane@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Brian Gerst wrote:

> Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Jul 2005, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > Why per node? Why not go the whole way and make it per CPU?
> > > 
> > > I would also not define it statically, but allocate it at boot time
> > > in node local memory.
> > 
> > 
> > I went per node so that it would be minimal/zero impact for the no-node
> > case, it would also simplify hotplug cpu since once a cpu in a node goes
> > down, we still have other participating processors capable of handling its
> > devices without having to do too much migration work. I'll definitely
> > incorporate the node local allocations however, for some i386 systems we
> > might be forced to stick some additional IDTs on node 0 since the IDTR will
> > only take 32bit addresses and we could end up with only highmem on some
> > nodes.
> 
> Doesn't the IDTR take a virtual address?  It has to or else the f00f bug fix
> wouldn't work.

Yes you're right, i wasn't quite awake when i replied, thanks for 
correcting that.

	Zwane

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/