"Yinghai Lu" <[email protected]> writes:
> On 5/18/07, Eric W. Biederman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We can solve the problem without doing that, and keeping the same
>> vector number during migration keeps x86 from scaling.
>
> I mean ioapic level irq couls be limited. new device could use MSI or
> HT irq directly and less irq routing problem.
Possibly. It really doesn't buy us anything until most irqs are MSI
which they are not yet.
>> Personally I would prefer to disallow irq migration.
> ? typo?
> For amd platform with different hypertransport chain on different
> nodes, irq migration is needed.
irqs not on cpu0 are needed. irq migration is less necessary, and I periodically
think we are insane for supporting it.
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]
