"H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]> writes:
> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> a) Because I would like to flush out bugs.
>> b) Because I want a default that works for everyone.
>> c) Because with MSI we have a potential for large irq counts on most systems.
>> d) Because anyone who disagrees with me can send a patch and fix
>> the default.
>> e) Because with the default number of cpus we can very close to needing
>> this many irqs in the worst case.
>> f) This is much better than previous to my patch and setting NR_CPUS=255
>> and getting 8K IRQS.
>> g) Because I probably should have been more inventive than copying the
>> NR_IRQS text, but when I did the wording sounded ok to me.
>>
>
> Why not simply reserve 224*NR_CPUS IRQs? If you have 256 CPUs allocating 64K
> IRQs should hardly matter :)
Well there is this little matter of 224*NR_CPUS*NR_CPUS counters at that point
that I think would be prohibitive for most sane people. Taking 224K of per cpu
memory in 256 different per cpu areas.
Still what is 56MB when you have a terrabyte of RAM. :)
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]
