Re: [PATCH] sparse_irq aka dyn_irq v13

[David Miller]

From: Mike Travis <travis@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:11:29 -0800

> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:19:13 +1100
> > 
> >> Andrew Morton writes:
> >>
> >>> Other architectures want (or have) sparse interrupts.  Are those guys
> >>> paying attention here?
> >> On powerpc we have a mapping from virtual irq numbers (in the range 0
> >> to NR_IRQS-1) to physical irq numbers (which can be anything) and back
> >> again.  I think our approach is simpler than what's being proposed
> >> here, though we don't try to keep the irqdescs node-local as this
> >> patch seems to (fortunately our big systems aren't so NUMA-ish as to
> >> make that necessary).
> > 
> > This is exactly what sparc64 does as well, same as powerpc, and
> > as Paul said it's so much incredibly simpler than the dyn_irq stuff.
> 
> One problem is that pre-defining a static NR_IRQ count is almost always
> wrong when the NR_CPUS count is large, and should be adjusted as resources
> require.

We use a value of 256 and I've been booting linux on 128 cpu sparc64
systems with lots of PCI-E host controllers (and others have booted it
on even larger ones).  All of which have several NUMA domains.

It's not an issue.

> Large UV systems will take a performance hit from off-node accesses
> when the CPU count (or more likely the NODE count) reaches some
> threshold.  So keeping as much interrupt context close to the
> interrupting source is a good thing.

Just because the same piece of information is repeated over and
over again doesn't mean it really matters.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/