From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"csnook@redhat.com" <csnook@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP PPC based systems)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:43:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4923B597.7090208@qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081024.161818.256978293.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:39:05 -0500
>
>> As for making it ARCH specific, that doesn't really help since not
>> all PPC hw has the limitation I spoke of. Not even all MPIC (in our
>> cases) have the limitation.
>
> Since the PPC code knows exactly which MPICs have the problem the
> PPC code is where the constraining can occur.
>
> I agree completely with the suggestion that the arch code has to
> interpret the cpumask as appropriate for the hardware, since the
> user can stick "illegal" values there anyways.
Sorry for delay in replying to this. And sorry for causing regression on some
ppc platforms.
I totally agree with what Dave said above. ALL_CPUS is a sane default,
platform code has to sanity check masks passed via set_affinity() calls
anyway. So I beleive it should be fixed in the platform code.
Max
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: "galak@kernel.crashing.org" <galak@kernel.crashing.org>,
"csnook@redhat.com" <csnook@redhat.com>,
"linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP PPC based systems)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:43:35 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4923B597.7090208@qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081024.161818.256978293.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller wrote:
> From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 10:39:05 -0500
>
>> As for making it ARCH specific, that doesn't really help since not
>> all PPC hw has the limitation I spoke of. Not even all MPIC (in our
>> cases) have the limitation.
>
> Since the PPC code knows exactly which MPICs have the problem the
> PPC code is where the constraining can occur.
>
> I agree completely with the suggestion that the arch code has to
> interpret the cpumask as appropriate for the hardware, since the
> user can stick "illegal" values there anyways.
Sorry for delay in replying to this. And sorry for causing regression on some
ppc platforms.
I totally agree with what Dave said above. ALL_CPUS is a sane default,
platform code has to sanity check masks passed via set_affinity() calls
anyway. So I beleive it should be fixed in the platform code.
Max
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-19 6:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-10-24 12:45 default IRQ affinity change in v2.6.27 (breaking several SMP PPC based systems) Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 12:45 ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 15:17 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 15:17 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 15:39 ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 15:39 ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 16:09 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 16:09 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 16:36 ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 16:36 ` Kumar Gala
2008-10-24 17:39 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 17:39 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 18:18 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 18:18 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 18:26 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 18:26 ` Scott Wood
2008-10-24 17:51 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 17:51 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-24 23:18 ` David Miller
2008-10-24 23:18 ` David Miller
2008-11-19 6:43 ` Max Krasnyansky [this message]
2008-11-19 6:43 ` Max Krasnyansky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4923B597.7090208@qualcomm.com \
--to=maxk@qualcomm.com \
--cc=csnook@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.