Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> writes:
> * Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In addition the cases I can think of allowed_affinity is the wrong
>> name. suggested_affinity sounds like what you are trying to implement
>> and when it is merely a suggestion and not a hard limit it doesn't
>> make sense to export like this.
>
> well, there are interrupts that must be tied to a single CPU and must
> never be moved away. For example per-CPU clock-events-source interrupts
> are such. So allowed_affinity very much exists.
Although in that case since it is a single cpu there is a much
more elegant implementation. We don't need a full cpumask_t to
describe it.
> also there might be hardware that can only route a given IRQ to a subset
> of CPUs. While setting set_affinity allows the irqbalance-daemon to
> 'probe' this mask, it's a far from optimal API.
I agree, I am just arguing that adding another awkward interface to
the current situation does not really make the situation better, and
it increases our support burden.
For a bunch of this it is arguable that the way to go is simply to
parse the irq type in /proc/interrupts. All of the really weird cases
will have a distinct type there. This certainly captures the MSI-X
case. There is still a question of how to handle the NUMA case but...
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]
