Re: [(repost) git Patch 1/1] avoid IRQ0 ioapic pin collision

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Tuesday 02 May 2006 08:57, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> writes:
> 
> >> >- Modify do_IRQ to get passed an interrupt vector# from the
> >> >  interrupt vector instead of an irq number, and then lookup
> >> >  the irq number in vector_irq.  This means we don't need
> >> >  a code stub per irq, and allows us to handle more irqs
> >> >  by simply increasing NR_IRQS.
> >> 
> >> isn't the vector number already on the stack from
> >> ENTRY(interrupt)
> >> 	pushl $vector-256
> >
> > Yes - and interrupts/vectors are currently always identical. 
> 
> No.  At best there is a fixed offset.  They can't be
> identical because the first 32 vectors are reserved,
> for processor exceptions.  
> 
> Beyond that the kernel would not need the vector_irq and irq_vector
> arrays if they were always identical, or even if they were one to one.


Yes I should have said it's a fixed offset. Sorry for the confusion.
Just no mapping table needed.

> 
> If you look at assign_irq_vector you will see that by default we
> allocate every 8th vector.  Looking at the comment in
> init_IO_APIC_traps() this seems to be because we want to avoid
> apic bugs with multiple interrupts of the same priority.
> Although why we skip 8 instead of 16 is beyond me.

Hmm - i guess that's old APIC bugs. Might be worth revisiting
on 64bit.


> 
> Although now that I think about it, using some assembler macros
> instead of cpp macros could probably solve the problem more easily
> than generating the stubs at runtime.  I think the worst case is
> 256 cpus * 32 irqs per cpu 

32 irqs? It's (255-32) 

> * 10 bytes per stub = 80K. 

My calculations gave >200k which is definitely too much.

-Andi

-
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/